To clarify, I'm on Verdy's side regarding the calendar dispute (not that I follow it closely). Third-party developers should improve their wiki parsers, not impose restrictions on pages.
But I don't like the introduction of microformats to the calendar template, which he made. It made reading and updating the template source harder. See the example and discussion: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template_talk:Calendar#What_happened_to_the_template.3F.21 I find it strange that one month Verdy makes the template harder to use for the sake of some software, and the next he's complaining because other people do the same. Also, many of his changes are actually good. But the number of edits is so high, nobody will verify all of these. This is similar to imports to OSM: potentially good, but hard to assess. Imports and automatic edits should be discussed — so why not mass wiki edits? Finally, Verdy has edited so many pages on tagging, he's probably considering himself an expert on tagging. And he is appearing in proposal discussions, enforcing the "librarian" point of view: that accepted proposals are set in stone, that wiki supersedes actual mapping practices. That just looks weird and sidetracks discussions. Ilya _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
