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

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri May 24 19:31:27 UTC 2019


On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes.  I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people.
>
> 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind.
>

Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual
impairment:

The *legal* definition of *blindness* varies from country to country but
most nations, including the *UK* define it as having a visual acuity of
worse than 20 in 200. ... The limit usually imposed is a visual field of 20
degrees or less, which is about 10% of the visual field of someone with
'normal' eyesight.

It's been a long time since "blind" meant "no vision whatsoever."  It's
sometimes considered more
polite to refer to the visually impaired, but that is more typing when you
are referring to people who
are legally blind.  BTW, I am visually impaired but not legally blind (or
close to it).  If you wear
spectacles, you are visually impaired (I have other visual problems besides
wearing spectacles).
It is not incorrect to use "blind" here.

2) I didn't say you hated anyone.
>

You implied it.  Read what you wrote carefully.  About me not caring if
blind (visually-impaired
if you insist) people die crossing the road.  I'd have to hate people to
not care if they live or die.
At best I'd have to be sociopathic.

3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually
> believe that.
>

It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others.  Not in the
context of the rest of
the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question."  Read the
whole paragraph again.
I can quote it back to you again, if necessary.


> The hope was that those making these claims would be jostled into
> confronting the issue head-on. Unfortunately, there was no response - this
> could've been clarified.
>

I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at
it.  I'm willing to
assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points
across.  I'm even
willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the
enthusiastic lack
of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode
well for your
proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted.

> I noticed when you called me condescending.
>
> I don't believe I've ever called anyone condescending.
>

It was another of your anonymous "one person was condescending to me"
side-swipes.  You
do a lot of that.  I'm willing to assume you think it makes you less
confrontational, but I think
otherwise.  Because everyone can work out who you're talking about but you
deny that person
the ability to easily respond without risking a deflection like "I never
called YOU condescending,
I just said there were condescending people."  A veiled insult is still an
insult.

The rest of the response seems like something to discuss on other threads.
>

Brief summary:  crossing signals and crossing markings (such as zebra
stripes) are
NOT orthogonal in practice (at least in the UK, other countries may
differ); allowing them
to be marked as such on OSM would lead to greater dangers for the visually
impaired.

However, that all depends on whether or not I've correctly interpreted what
you mean by "markings."
Until today I couldn't make head or tail of what you meant by them since it
contradicted most
people's natural interpretation of how crossings are implemented and how
they work and
at times you seemed to contradict yourself (the Socratic method doesn't
work too well here, if
that's what you were attempting). Maybe I'm missing something.  Or maybe
you are.

So can we have a meaningful attempt to figure out each other's positions or
should we just
continue lobbing veiled insults at each other until the moderator kicks one
or both of us off the list?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190524/93936b94/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list