[talk-au] What are the Facts?

[Sebastian S.]

Herbert,
All this is quite a lot and lacks clear issues to discuss.
It also reads to me as if you would be writing down some text that has been developed by a larger group and you are writing done their view?


Keep in mind that little response to your lengthy text does not mean consent or endorsement.
-- 

On 23 September 2019 8:35:53 pm AEST, "Herbert.Remi via Talk-au" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>What are the Facts?
>> ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.’>
>— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
>I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The
>Facts” and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do
>that. I will send you the first part tomorrow.
>"The Facts" is a summary of information from various relevant sources
>in OSM Wiki, laws and regulations that apply to the ACT and any other
>information of a factual nature which may help clarify “The Issue.”
>In principle, the facts should be straight forward.
>The first step is the pick through what we know and clarify, confirm
>and remove any errors that have crept into the brief. This information
>creates a level playing field of knowledge.
>Your comments are more than welcome. To quote OSM Wiki, “be bold.”
>If you think any of the information is in error, please try to provide
>the correct information and preferably with a link, or at least mention
>the source of this information. At every level in OSM, it always comes
>back to the principle of “verifiable”. It is easy to get things wrong
>when we are relying on memory.
>Please stick to critiquing the facts and not getting off-topic. I will
>process your feedback at the end of the calendar day and integrate the
>information into the brief or correct it as is required.
>The updated and corrected facts section will be published with the full
>brief including “The Issue” on the following day.
>The same is true for the quality definition. A word can have many
>meanings. This is why the OSM technical definition is so valuable.
>The purpose of the quality definition is to define in OSM terms, for
>example, what a shared bike path is, within the context of its
>information provided in “The Facts”. In other words, we cannot have a
>quality definition that is illegal under ACT law or unfit for purpose.
>Coming tomorrow 24/9/2019
>The Facts for Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back:
>confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190923/b7ec3bf0/attachment.html>