On 04/11/13 00:23, Rob Nickerson wrote:
To summarise: a simple question was asked entirely inocently, and I am 100% sure that it was not meant to belittle 10 years of tagging. An answer was given in quite a "matter of fact" tone which in face to face communication would be fine but due to the un human nature of email could be interpreted as negative. Again I am 100% sure it was not meant negatively. Similarly I have had many positive conversations with Chris, so hopefully his response was purely down to a misinterpretation of the emails.
I'm sorry, did I miss the point where somebody (other than you it seems) had a problem with the tone of my reply? As far as I can see the only complaints were about the (unacceptable IMHO) behaviour of chilly in his off list reply.
Yes, my initial sentence about this having been discussed to death before may have been a bit short I guess, but the vast majority of my email was explainging the rationale behind the tagging.
Lessons: * We should be able to explain the reasoning behind our tagging if asked.
Absolutely, and I believe I did so. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([email protected]) http://compton.nu/ _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
