I don't think any level of whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) will change that the default editor on osm.org has a special (and very coveted) position.
So while I agree that in principle we should expect the same level of care from all apps that edit OSM data via the API, that doesn't change the status that iD has and the extra care that that requires. Not to forget that iD is by far the most prescriptive editor of the trio of iD, P2 and JOSM (together ~99% of all edits) and that its policies have, in every aspect, far more effect than with any other editor. I have to say that I'm more than a bit disappointed with, as one of the champions of deploying iD as the default editor in 2013, where we've ended now. While there has always been some tension between the development team and the community, it has never amounted to the levels of ignoring best practices and community input we have now. Simon Am 29.05.2019 um 02:10 schrieb Clifford Snow: > Why should one editor be held to higher standards than others? > Shouldn't they all be held to the same standard? > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM john whelan <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The problem with iD is the fact that it is the default editor on > the web page of the website which implies that everything is > OpenStreetMap approved which unfortunately is not the case. > > If it's placed as the default editor then I think it needs to be > held to a higher standard or some sort of change management system > implemented. > > Cheerio John > > On Tue, May 28, 2019, 7:47 PM Clifford Snow, > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Michael, > Don't you think to be fair that you should include all outside > projects, such as JOSM, Potlatch, CartoCSS, etc? None of them > are controlled by OSMF as far as I know. To just look at one > software project seems like we already reached a decision, we > just need the data to back it up. > > Best, > Clifford > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:47 PM Michael Reichert > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I started documenting controversial decisions by the > maintainers of iD > at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions > > Currently, only the highway=footway and the nonsquare=yes > issue are > mentioned. > > Please feel free to add other issues which have proofed > controversial so > far. Don't forget to summarise the opinion of the > maintainer as well to > aim at least some neutrality as far as it is possible for > those involved > in the disputes. Please add links to relevant discussions > as well. > > Best regards > > Michael > > > -- > Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. > (Mailinglisten > ausgenommen) > I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on > mailing lists) > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us <https://www.snowandsnow.us> > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us <https://www.snowandsnow.us> > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
