[Osmf-talk] Future of DWG work, copyright, vandalism
gerdami at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 9 11:50:16 UTC 2012
After a few months of activity with OSM, I found that the most convivial place for discussions was http://help.openstreetmap.org.
Unfortunately, some of you think that discussions should be isolated.
Example: I once posted "Landuse=farm vs landuse=farmland"at http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/12553/landusefarm-vs-landusefarmland-in-potatch2
it was closed immediately and I was hinted to post such discussion elsewhere.
That's what I did at https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4392 but nothing happens there. I understand that Potlach developers may be busy on something more important for them, but there is no discussion at all between mappers.
In my humble opinion, the help site, which is really user-social-friendly, could hold such discussions, perhaps by adding a new section beside questions, tags and users.
PS: Le cas échéant, en raison de l'incertitude liée aux spams, merci de confirmer la bonne réception de cet email.
From: Ragnvald Larsen <ragnvald at mindland.com>
To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Future of DWG work, copyright, vandalism
I am not sure having discussions on changeset level (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset) or in the open between users is enough. I would like to see a more down to earth geographical dimension to the discussions.
Whether it uses a global grid reference system (see QDGC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QDGC (*)) or a list of coordinates with a radius as the limiting factor (foursquare-style) I do not know. I am sure there are other ways of doing it as well.
I have done a fair number of edits on a small island in the northern parts of Norway (http://www.mindland.com/wp/openstreetmap-imagery-updated-for-norway/) but I would love to have someone pulling this project or neighboring ones together with me. Today the strategy would be to see who as done edits around there and then approach them by direct messaging. I could also look up the country page and see who has been active in a country. Doing this for Tanzania I will find a editable list currently 5 persons long (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Tanzania)
I am missing the social hooks which I find important in this kind of work. As a user this is my perspective. I am hoping that it contributes to this policy-level discussion in a constructive way.
*) The formalization of a naming convention for degree based grid squares with "recursive sizes".
On 09.06.12 11:39, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
> Harry Wood<mail at harrywood.co.uk> wrote:
>> My response to this thread was going to be the exact same thing
>> that Guttorm Flatabø has zero'd in on here. I think it would be a
>> very good idea to change things so that when you send a one-to-one
>> message to somebody to discuss their edits, even though it is in
>> essence one-to-one, it would be a public, and it should be public by
>> default in my opinion.
> Hm. Maybe I'm just a little bit too old fashioned then. I can see the
> advantages of having edit-related communications out in the open
> (ideally linked to edits/changesets and not to users, but of course
> that would make it possible to have an aggregated "last comments on
> edits by this user" page etc.) - i always assumed that privacy
> is paramount and if users want to sent each other personal messages we
> must of course allow that. But maybe we don't - users can decide to
> publish their email address and then they can receive personal
> messages, or they don't and then they can only receive public ones.
>> This makes it easy to see if you're the first person to contact a
>> user about something, or to join in with others if they need back-up
>> in a debate.
> Both would be very good to have.
>> I believe this would help us to deal with suspicious
>> edits much more effectively as a community.
> We'd have to have something that allows you to see the "most contended
> edits" in an area or so, or at least those that have attracted most
> comments, so you can see where the hot issues are.
> I'm a bit unsure how the whole thing needs to be designed though. I
> think that generally comments should be changeset based but it is quite
> possible that discussion quickly leaves the individual changeset, e.g.
> User A: makes edit
> User B: comments "don't make edits in my area!!!!"
> User C: tells off user B for being over-protective
> User A: makes edit
> User B: writes "don't tag cycleways like that, instead do X"
> User A: disagrees and explains how he thinks cycleways need to be tagged
> in both cases, the discussion has moved away from the individual
> changeset to something broader, and it might not be good to hide it
> away on a changeset page. But in other cases a discussion might well be
> very specific to a changeset and it would therefore be out of place to
> have that discussion on a user page...
>> Although this idea is like the "user talk pages" on wikipedia, in OSM
>> I'd envisage this not as a wiki page with wiki style editable
>> discussion (which is exotic and weird) but as a simple modification
>> of our current site's message system, essentially making a publicly
>> viewable inbox.
> In a way, yes; but as I said, I think the discussion must at least
> initially start on the changeset page and be collected there; else
> you'd have to switch through the publicly viewable inboxes of all
> participants to understand what is going on. The changeset would, in
> many cases at least, be the natural place to start such a "thread".
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk