[Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

> Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.
>

Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.  I noticed when
you called me
condescending.


claims about how mapping these things don't matter, despite the use cases I
had repeatedly gone over. I felt that directness was necessary, because
that is the implication of these facts: (1) low vision individuals need
this information to navigate and pedestrians are safer at marked crossings,
and (2) it was repeatedly stated that mapping these things isn't important.


These things are important.  It's just that some of us think your logic is
wrong.

They were asked as questions, and there was no response.
>

YET.  Your points seem (to me) to be invalid and self-contradictory at
times.  I have finally
managed to come up with a perversely-pedantic interpretation of "markings"
that would
make your position consistent, but still deeply flawed (and, in fact, your
position would
put those with visual impairment at greater risk).  And, given your
behaviour here, is there
any point in me attempting to take this further?  Most people here don't
seem to see the
problems you claim to exist, so why bother?

BTW, if we're going to harp on points that were not responded to, what
about you poisoning the well
by implying I hate blind people?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190524/9a6e567a/attachment.html>