On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jonathan Crowe <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been in contact with the user who did the import, and referred > him to the list. He's posted here before. My impression is that this > was a well-meaning import with unintended consequences; I'm not at all > comfortable with the talk of "vandalism" on osm-talk that was spurred > on by tweets I made yesterday.
Sure. Deliberate vandalism is very, very rare. It's gets some attention though. ;-) Much more frequent is mistaking tools that are easy to use vs. tools that are easy to use-well, vs. tools that are easy to use well in a way that is ideal for everyone in the project. That third part is still elusive. ;-) We've avoided here, much of the evocative language from the talk@ thread and I hope that all Canadian contributors feel free to participate in the discussion. We all make honest mistakes. I'm a advocate of "not importing." I like to think that I have tempered my default no-imports stance with a realistic compromise of the "well-considered, carefully executed, limited scope import, that might be a net benefit if everything goes perfectly". That message seems to get diluted when an enthusiastic contributor discovers an interesting dataset, and an import script; all they seem to hear is "Hey! Imports! Cool! Watch me go!!!!1!" I find that frustrating. Jonathan, I'd like to hear from the mapper who did the work, and if they agree, and the area is unchanged-enough since the edits under consideration then we can revert it. If there have been partial reverts or manual repairs that preclude a simple revert, then why don't we take shifts patching it manually? We've had recent similar issues appear in other parts of Quebec. We don't want this sort of complaint to become even more common. _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
