<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>6 cze 2022, 20:24 od tomasstraupis@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>As I've written earlier, I've asked Lithuanian mapping community if<br></div><div>rigid QA checks should be stopped in Lithuania. I stated that part of<br></div><div>the problem with such checks is sometimes angry reactions of people<br></div><div>whose changesets are discussed/reverted. So far I've received one<br></div><div>answer personally and two on a list: all of them supporting<br></div><div>continuation of QA job.<br></div><div>(In case someone wants to check my words:<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-lt/2022-June/002717.html)<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Noone proposes banning QA or claiming that well done QA is bad.<br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And escriping QA process as a success, describing it as a clearly good thing<br></div><div dir="auto">and not mentioning any raised issues is obviously likely to result in positive <br></div><div dir="auto">feedback. Especially if people opposed already were driven out of OSM<br></div><div dir="auto">in Lithuania.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And it was not explained at all why you made<br></div><div dir="auto">that posting (as support for aggressive enforcement of rule that is - at<br></div><div dir="auto">best - very weid local practice divergent from normal tagging, and<br></div><div dir="auto">is apparently just a proposal in the first place)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Reasonable complaints included complaints about<br></div><div>- insults<br></div></div><div dir="auto">- enforcing extremely unusual and at best problematic rules<br></div><div dir="auto">- aggressive comments<br></div><div dir="auto">- blindly following some QA tools or QA tools producing misleading reports<br></div><div dir="auto">(yes, both waterway=riverbank and natural=water water=river are fine)<br></div><div dir="auto">- misleading advice/reccomendations<br></div><div dir="auto">- hostility toward people using typical tools/tagging<br></div><div dir="auto">- claims about of violations of rules that were not documented as rules<br></div><div dir="auto">anywhere<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">none were mentioned in your post or even linked<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rigid QA can be a good thing, enforcing harmful rules in insulting way<br></div><div dir="auto">is not helpful.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>2. Claim about all/most of my changeset comments being abusive. Total<br></div><div>number of changesets I've commented is 1,429. Frederik can provide<br></div><div>number of changesets which got complains to DWG where I was abusive<br></div><div>(not the ones where reporter was incorrect), I will try count and<br></div><div>present a list of changesets where I got thanks (like this one just<br></div><div>day before yesterday:<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121931916). Then we will have<br></div><div>objective numbers and not subjective impressions.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Numbers, formulas and processes is the way to resolution, not rumours<br></div><div>and biases.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I think that noone reasonable claims that every single of your comments were<br></div><div dir="auto">abusive.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But making N reasonable comments or ones toward actual vandals adding fake<br></div><div dir="auto">objects does not entitle anyone to making abusive comments.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Some honest mistakes are fine, but "most of changeset comments and<br></div><div dir="auto">interactions is not abusive" is not making repeated abuse OK.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Within last moths I closed about 500 spam/troll notes, this does not entitle me<br></div><div dir="auto">to - say - making 5 abusive notes or vandalising tags on 15 POIs.<br></div> </body>
</html>