[OSM-talk-be] boundary names and my program

Thu Nov 29 20:27:36 UTC 2012

Thanks Ben for your mail. I still believe that we have to focus more on new
or less expertised volunteers and stay open for new ideas. For that it
seems extremely important to have an up to date wiki. I also propose a new
rule "tag always for the mapper" ;-). I really don't understand why it's
forbidden to use a name instead of a note. Every  time we have here the
same discussions (last time wandelnetwerken, now administrative borders).
Thats very sad, I found a lot of faults and i can't correct then because
the pieces have no names.

2012/11/29 Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com>

> On Thursday 29 November 2012 15:58:13 Ivo De Broeck wrote:
> > I feel with you, you are not the only person is disappointed in the
> working
> > of OSM in Belgium. In my opinion a few people have here own rules
> > (examples: don't use names, put this info in a note, use JOSM, etc) and
> > neglecking hundreds of driven volunteers.
>
> Well, I guess I can plead guilty for some of that. It's an unfortunate
> effect
> of being in it for so many years and following up on so many issues in the
> community that you take some things for granted. Several strict rules have
> been formed in the community in all the years prior and when it's proposed
> to
> discard some of them, one is less eager to enter into a discussion rather
> than
> saying: "no, that shouldn't be done".
>
> "Use note, not name." That's one example of the "don't tag for the mapper"
> rule. Almost as important as the "don't tag for renderer" rule. I agree
> that I
> have difficulty in discussing an issue like this. It's one of those rules
> that
> are just "there"... This may indeed sound a lot like telling other people
> what
> to do. For me it's like someone suggesting that 1 plus 1 equals 3 instead
> of
> 2, something you can't really argue other than saying it isn't. It's hard
> to
> handle, but in this case for example I haven't done anything to enforce
> this
> rule, other than restating the rule over and over again. Several people are
> mapping boundaries with names, good for them, good for OSM. I may not
> agree to
> that way of tagging, but so be it. I won't get after them and change
> everything they've done behind their back as some kind of tagging police.
>
> "Use JOSM" is an example of the numerous frustrations accumulated during
> the
> past years. Having seen so many errors made just because of the way
> Potlatch
> works, this is a logical result. To be able to use JOSM, you have to get a
> bit
> more knowledgeable about mapping for OSM, so people using it automatically
> tend to be less error-prone. But bad things can be done within JOSM of
> course.
> I still discourage usage of Potlatch, but it has its qualities and use
> cases,
> and I'm sure we have a lot of mappers who wouldn't be with us if it weren't
> available. So if you want to use Potlatch, all the best to you, but please
> use
> it wisely, and never blindly add things Potlatch suggests by its interface.
> And don't tell something is true because Potlatch says it is. And that rule
> goes to every editor out there, including JOSM.
>
>
> > In my opinion the problem is that there is no complete wiki and it seams
> > that some people can make their own rules.
>
> The latter being the result of the former. The former being the result of
> the
> latter. Chicken and egg. People make their rules because there don't (seem
> to)
> exist any. Rules aren't written down because since everybody has their own
> rules, there aren't really any rules. Discussions about it then go into a
> "my
> way of tagging is right", and again I plead guilty. But the controversial
> rules that I made are written down on the wiki in my user space to let
> other
> people know that it's my rules.
>
> Case in point, the extended access tags. It was never discussed on this
> mailing list but it can be found in several other places. I actually did
> create my own set of tags for this. Well, then the problem arises quite
> soon:
> by making your own rules you somehow had to learn quite a bit about the
> subject, and I'm pretty pedantic about being able to tag everything in a
> way
> that the exact traffic rules can be generated from the tags, and I could
> immediately see flaws when another proposal is created. I had some tough
> discussions in the course of solving this issue. Long story short: I ended
> up
> supporting a proposal that I didn't have any part in creating, and am now
> tagging according to those rules.
>
> Relating to everything in this thread: I can indeed become quite difficult
> to
> persuade. But this is more a way of "provoking" good solutions. I'm not too
> proud to let go of my own ideas and adopt other peoples' viewpoints. If
> this
> somehow comes over as imposing my will onto others and if I sound a bit
> arrogant as a result of this, then I do apologize.
>
>
> > Exemple : there was a majority for using "hiking" instead of "foot"
> > (Potlach preset hiking instead of foot). Its not on the wiki and all
> > "hiking's" were changed to "foot's". If we continue like that i am sure
> we
> > will lose a lot of people.
>
> For what it's worth, I did change some from hiking to foot, but that was
> before the discussion took place, and never systematically. If I happened
> to
> encounter one I'd change it if I had to edit it. Of course, many were
> tagged
> with foot since I mapped them myself, and the wiki page about the
> conventions
> (which I wrote myself...) always had "foot" as the used tag. After the
> discussion I haven't touched those.
>
>
> > I hope you will still continue your work on OSM and hope that one day,
> > people will "listen" to arguments and that "specialists" will put their
> > energy in making the wiki (after voting) instead of never ending
> > discussions.
>
> Well, I do hope no-one is put down by the endless discussions myself and I
> hope those that are have some way of discarding these threads... I still
> find
> them more valuable than a simple wiki vote though. It's about exchanging
> ideas, not just giving "likes" à la Facebook.
>
> In conclusion: I hope I made my viewpoint a bit clearer with this message,
> if
> I left a bad impression on some people in some discussions. I'm a bit
> stubborn
> on some issues, but I'm a very friendly person really :-)
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

-- 
Ivo De Broeck
Valleilaan 13
3360 Korbeek-lo
tel +32 16 43 84 93
gsm +32 486 17 61 13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20121129/6b81977b/attachment.htm>