<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt'>
<p>Hi Frederik,</p>
<p>a few comments:</p>
<p>And it was the second debate about the topic, and it did not anything new over the first debate.</p>
<ul>
<li>-> Again, I find this answer highly disturbing. What is the frequency we are allowed to debate the same topic? 2 years? 5 years? And: Are those who have recently joined OSM and didn't participate in the debate from two years ago allowed to raise it? Can people who were there last time but didn't participate last time do it now?</li>
</ul>
<p>I think the penalty of banning comes from a moderator saying "if you do this again I will ban you". If such a warning is blatantly and willfully ignored without consequence, we might as well do away with moderators altogether.</p>
<ul>
<li>-> I consider this warning abusive and should not have happened in the first place.</li>
</ul>
<p>As for consensus, taginfo says that "phone" outnumbers "contact:phone" by 4:1 and the number of people "having last edited" an object with "phone" outnumbers those having last edited an object with "contact:phone" by 6:1.</p>
<ul>
<li>-> I was talking about establishing community consensus in general. Which of the two options I prefer is not relevant, I have no intention to continue this specific debate but I do believe it is absolutely necessary that we find a way to settle this debate - as well as others. Needless to say that in this specific case the reference to taginfo is vicious, knowing that editors clearly favor one of the options. Does ID and JOSM establish community consensus? Maybe I should learn programming, might be much more effective for influencing OSM, rather than debating endlessly...</li>
</ul>
<p>Saying "if you don't like the topic, ignore it" is cynical; first of all, once there are too many topics I don't like on the mailing list, I will dislike the whole mailing list</p>
<ul>
<li>-> I can't believe how elitist this sounds. There are many people inside OSM who are very concerned about attracting more people to get involved in the community beyond pure mapping. I wished we had more than just these bunch of two dozens of old friends commenting on this list, much more - I'd rather have hundreds or thousands of people from all parts of the world, interested in how to achieve a better database. The message you are sending is "please stay all away and leave me alone in my backyard so I can have a barbecue with my friends in peace. If all of you participate my mailbox would overflow and I really wouldn't like THAT"</li>
</ul>
<p>1. OSM doens't have a nice and clean data model as taught in your computer sciene 1+1 and if you can't wrap your head around this then go play somewhere else</p>
<ul>
<li>-> If one thinks that repeating this with the intention to discourage people from trying to improve a worldwide, open and collaborative database the suggestion could go the opposite direction.</li>
</ul>
<p>I am rather tired of hearing the same old "oh but OSM should have a CLEAN data structure where everything is nicely put in a NAMESPACE" discussion again.</p>
<ul>
<li>-> I kindly ask you to refer to a place where I can read a basic statement, some kind of OSM "constitution", some formally approved paper or text that enlightens us regarding WHAT kind of database this is supposed to be to begin with. If it turns out there is none (maybe there is but I am not aware) then this is - well - just your opinion, as good as any other. Everybody here has things we can be tired about.</li>
</ul>
<p>2. specifically, the phone tag is totally fine and we don't need contact:phone to store two million times in our database that by the way, a phone is some way of contacting someone;</p>
<p>-> Correction: Did you read the whole thread? It was difficult to miss Paul's strong opinion that a phone is not always there to establish contact. Easy way out: If a telephone number is not always there contact somebody and we want to make this distinction then we need both schemes. If both refer to exactly the same thing we should make up our minds and stick to one, you personal favorite is without "contact". Fair enough.</p>
<p>Marcos</p>
<p>Am 28.01.2022 20:31, schrieb Frederik Ramm:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Hi,</span><br /> <br /> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">On 1/28/22 19:21, <a href="mailto:mail@marcos-martinez.net">mail@marcos-martinez.net</a> wrote:</span>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">The previous debate happened in May 2020, more than 1 year and 8 months ago.</span></blockquote>
<br /> And it was the second debate about the topic, and it did not anything new over the first debate.<br /> <br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">If the above is interpreted as established community consensus which is not to be challenged under penalty of banning,</blockquote>
<br /> I think the penalty of banning comes from a moderator saying "if you do this again I will ban you". If such a warning is blatantly and willfully ignored without consequence, we might as well do away with moderators altogether.<br /> <br /> As for consensus, taginfo says that "phone" outnumbers "contact:phone" by 4:1 and the number of people "having last edited" an object with "phone" outnumbers those having last edited an object with "contact:phone" by 6:1.<br /> <br /> I am rather tired of hearing the same old "oh but OSM should have a CLEAN data structure where everything is nicely put in a NAMESPACE" discussion again. Saying "if you don't like the topic, ignore it" is cynical; first of all, once there are too many topics I don't like on the mailing list, I will dislike the whole mailing list; secondly, Sören bringing up the same old topic again forces me to re-iterate the same old arguments against, or else someone will say "hey, see, nobody was against it".<br /> <br /> I am not a list moderator but I am in the Data Working Group and when we say to someone "don't do this again" (even if it should be something that other users can do with impunity) and this person smiles in our faces while he's doing the exact thing again, then of course we block them, and we most certainly don't first start a poll among OSM users whether they think this is just.<br /> <br /> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">So,</span><br /> <br /> 1. OSM doens't have a nice and clean data model as taught in your computer sciene 1+1 and if you can't wrap your head around this then go play somewhere else;<br /> <br /> 2. specifically, the phone tag is totally fine and we don't need contact:phone to store two million times in our database that by the way, a phone is some way of contacting someone;<br /> <br /> 3. and Richard was totally right to follow through on his announcement to not tolerate the same discussion for a third time.<br /> <br /> Bye<br /> Frederik</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br /></p>
</body></html>