<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Das ist ein wichtiges Thema. Dass es offenbar nur einen Bruchteil
der CO2-Emmissionen von OSM betrifft,ist egal, weil beim Kampf gegen
den Klimawandel müssen alle Emissionen veringert werden, nicht nur
die großen. <br>
<br>
Auch haben Board Members eine Vorbildfunktion, die vielleicht andere
dazu bringt, auch aufs Fliegen zu verzichten. <br>
<br>
Trotzdem finde ich, dass die Formulierung noch angepasst werden
sollte, und zwar in 2 Punkten. <br>
1. Der Großteil der Distanz sollte mit Zug, Bus oder Schiff
erfolgen. Long Distance Taxi ist (zumindest in Europa) ein Blödsinn,
aber Taxi kann als First/Last Mile natürlich sinnvoll sein. Zu einer
Fahrt mit einem eigenen oder geliehenen Auto würde ich auch
niemanden zwingen. <br>
2. Michael, in der Begründung schreibst du "vernünftig", aber im
Textvorschlag fehlt das noch ein bisschen. Wenn die Fahrplanauskunft
als einzige Option angibt, ich muss mitten in der Nacht umsteigen,
zum Beispiel um 02:00 aussteigen und um 05:00 in einen anderen Zug
einsteigen, dann ist das aus meiner Sicht nicht mehr eine
"vernünftige Alternative". <br>
<br>
Liebe Grüße<br>
Florian (Nielkrokodil)<br>
<br>
---------- English below ----------<br>
<br>
This is an important issue. It doesn't matter that it seems to
affect only a fraction of OSM's CO2 emissions, because in the fight
against climate change all emissions must be reduced, not just the
large ones. <br>
<br>
Board members also have a role model function, which may encourage
others to give up flying as well. <br>
<br>
Nevertheless, I still think that the wording should be adapted, and
that it should be adapted in 2 points. <br>
1. most of the distance should be done by train, bus or ship. Long
Distance Taxi is (at least in Europe) nonsense, but cab can of
course make sense as First/Last Mile. I wouldn't force anyone to
drive with their own or rented car either. <br>
2. Michael, in the rationale you write "reasonable", but in the
proposed text this is still missing a bit. If the timetable
information states as the only option that I have to change trains
in the middle of the night, for example get off at 02:00 and get on
another train at 05:00, then in my opinion this is no longer a
"reasonable alternative". <br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Florian (Nielkrokodil)<br>
<br>
Translated with <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.DeepL.com/Translator">www.DeepL.com/Translator</a> (free version)<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.10.20 um 11:45 schrieb Mateusz
Konieczny via osmf-talk:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MKdeORi--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Oct 26, 2020, 11:55 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hartmut.holzgraefe@gmail.com">hartmut.holzgraefe@gmail.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div>On 26.10.20 11:36, Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Note that in this proposal (as stated) paying<br>
</div>
<div>far more money for car rental, long<br>
</div>
<div>distance taxi<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>where did these options come in?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>"if there is an option for that person to travel without
flying"<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anything, no matter how expensive, no matter how absurd, no
matter how C02 emitting<br>
</div>
<div>must be selected if it is not flight and matches requirements
for travel time and departure/arrival<br>
</div>
<div>time.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is a well intentioned but a badly written rigid rule.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-October/007353.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-October/007353.html</a><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Even though they are not explicitly mentioned as
non-options, going by car instead of plane would not make any
real sense towards climate goals<br>
</div>
<div>as -- unless sharing a ride -- cars are in the same CO2 per
person kilometer ballpark as planes.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>And may be also more expensive and more time consuming and
more dangerous at the same time.<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<blockquote>or vastly more expensive train is considered as a
"reasonable alternative".<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well, the proposal clearly states that it's prime
consideration is environmental impact, not cost ...<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Yes, I wanted to point out potential for that it may also
vastly increase costs and end in absurd cases.<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>