[Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/03/2017 14:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> "On 19 March 2017 at 13:13, ajt1047 at gmail.com <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>> I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
>>> outrageous.
>> No, he was sent this message:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271
> Which opens with the words "brianboru blocked by SomeoneElse"

The way that the DWG communicates with users is described in some detail 
at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group . The "User 
Blocks" section makes it clear how blocks are used (sample quotes: 'The 
vast majority of blocks imposed do not consist of any "blocked from 
mapping" period' and '... even a "0-hour message that has to be 
read"').  If you wish to change the message that the website displays to 
something other than "... blocked by ..." then you are welcome to 
suggest alternatives.

I usually make it clear when there _isn't_ a "blocked from mapping" 
period, as in this case - I said: "I think that the link between OSM 
changeset discussion comments and your email client has been broken" ... 
"This is just a message that you have to read before continuing editing".

>
>>> There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
>>> community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
>>> been published.
>> That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you
>> please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the "trees"
>> import was published, and where discussion took place?
> On the mailing list where I posted, for one.

If it exists, an actual link would be really useful here.  I'm aware of 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html 
, but that is by no means a "well-defined and transparent plan". 
Particularly worrying about that post is the last paragraph "On both 
issues I'll contact Amey as to how they propose to release data for 
additions and deletions" - that suggests that the process is rather more 
"suck it and see" than anything resembling 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines .

It'd be great to be able to move forward here - to identify the parts of 
the process that were missed, to have a discussion about tags (including 
answering e.g. Will's questions from 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-March/020058.html 
).  The replies to this thread make it pretty clear that the West 
Midlands group has some work to do to persuade the majority of the UK 
OSM community that the approach taken so far is a good one.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (the member of the DWG who handled the complaint about 
this import)