<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Verdana">Thank you Daniel.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">An additional issue is that "common sense"
is by itself also a highly interpretable philosophical term.
Common sense varies a lot across cultural, religious, political
views. The different perceptions are the source of many
arguments and discussions, especially in international context
like for names and boundaries and the different interpretations
given to many of the "good practices". If we are willing to
improve our guidelines, it's a term we should avoid.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">The primary use of "English language" is a
perfect example of it. The choice of English as primary language
is what I see as "common sense", although the term is typically
English and many languages have no specific translation, yet,
the majority of people know what is meant. It doesn't make sense
to start a crusade against it, it is not an expression of
localised preference or dominance, it was a "reasonable choice"
for both technical and practical reasons. Rather focus on
internationalisation to improve and increase inclusion and
diversity in our community.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">@Christoph and all,<br>
I will try my best in the draft(s), to come with a proposal that
is understandable and less open to variance in interpretation. I
share your view, and I fear, that this will lead to some form of
bureaucracy, yet unavoidable. Bureaucracy and more refined
guidelines are not always restrictive to freedoms. In the
contrary, they can improve inclusion and diversity, so I will do
my best to limit their use to those situations.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">When I started this sub-thread, I
specifically wanted to dislodge it from the ongoing Persian /
Arabian Gulf issue. Start a complete new thread. I even
expressed it in the email content and by using a new title.<br>
I hope you all believe that the failure to do so was absolutely
not intentional. I made a big mistake, what I tried to avoid
actually happened in the process and I have big shame about it.<br>
Blame me for it. I will do my utmost, lessons learned, to be
more cautious and accurate.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/07/2021 12:46, Daniel Koć wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d46c23ea-fd08-5463-1ffa-7fbd2fd9e669@xn--ko-wla.pl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">W dniu 13.07.2021 o 18:50, Christoph
Hormann pisze:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:202107131850.48982.osm@imagico.de">All we have in
common universally and that we can universally rely on is the
common
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">database and the principles under which we add and edit information in
that database. And the most fundamental of these principles is - "by
virtue of common sense" and not through an English language attempt at
explaining it on the wiki - the principle of verifiability.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>So why we have all the guidelines and documentation, if all we
should ever need is a common sense? Mapping would be very simple
then.<br>
</p>
<p>All the guidelines are limited and OSM is not an exception. We
have it both documented and it is also a common sense:</p>
<p><i>There might be cases where these guidelines don't apply, or
even contradict each other. </i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:202107131850.48982.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It seems to me you are contradicting yourself in what you write - you
call for limiting and relativizing the principle of verifiability just
to a few paragraphs later call for stricter and clearer rules and their
enforcement. That does not fit together.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think the problem you perceive comes from mixing "principles"
(ideas) with actual "guidelines" (documentation).<br>
</p>
<p>In general (principle) I think we agree that we want to check
things and not make things up. But the problem is that the
written guideline is insufficient for some objects, especially
big ones, so until it's extended/fixed/sanitized, it's of
limited use in this case, because "OSM data should, <b>as far
as is reasonably possible</b>, be verifiable" - and it's not
reasonably possible to the full extent in this case.<br>
</p>
<p>Common sense explains why this guideline is limited and
strongly biased towards small objects - because we started as a
local project with bicycles in the city and we just happened to
grow since then without rethinking how that applies to global
objects.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:202107131850.48982.osm@imagico.de"> </blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"Holy mother forking shirt balls!" [E. Shellstrop]</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>