[Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
dale.puch at gmail.com
Mon Feb 11 00:47:12 GMT 2013
"For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
also is, in total, harmful to the project."
NE2 may need to be banned, or may be valuable to OSM It should not be
decided here, but by a formal procedure.
My insight in this from past discussions and interaction is that NE2 has to
be "beaten over the head with incontrovertible evidence" before he is
willing to back down. The problem is he isn't offering similar evidence
to begin with, and refuses to give other users views similar weight to his
Regarding the restriction in question. As mentioned it would be illegal
based on not using the innermost lane, and crossing a solid traffic line.
Note that the on-ramp turn lane is the only one with a solid line from
where traffic has to stop.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bill R. WASHBURN <dygituljunky at gmail.com>wrote:
> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending NE2, one of Ian's points is
> that NE2 is banned from the list and that discussing this, here, does not
> allow ALL of the parties in the case to be involved in the discussion.
> One of the things that we need is a formal and transparent grievance
> process to correct poor behavior (and to build cases for banishment, when
> appropriate). In this case, it seems likely to me that the remediation
> process would have been resisted and the mediators, themselves, would have
> had their own case(s).
> For the sake of the strength of the project, for the sake of due process,
> and for the sake of being able to defend any sort of ban or other action,
> NE2 must have his day in "court." He (and those that may defend him) must
> be able to speak their minds. On the other hand, those the present
> situation isn't fair to those of us with grievances. The present situation
> also is, in total, harmful to the project.
> Add a side note, I actually do think that the idea of putting changeset
> approval processes in on new accounts and as a remediation measure in cases
> like NE2's is a fantastic idea. This would give the community an
> opportunity to prevent newbie mistakes from making it to the published map,
> correcting their newbie edit errors for a few edits until it's clear that
> they get the swing of things, and for sending rogue editors back to
> get-along-with-the-community school.
> Bill, aka dygituljunky
> On Feb 10, 2013 1:57 PM, "Paul Johnson" <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you feel there's a problem with a particular mapper please contact
>>> the mapper and the Data Working Group to help mediate the discussion so
>>> that it doesn't run rampant and one-sided on the mailing list.
>> Could we get the DWG in on this thread? Enough members of this project
>> are involved in this issue that having this discussion in public where all
>> parties concerned can by a part of the discussion, or at least see the
>> thought process on the DWG's part, that it would be a disservice to hide
>> this in an ivory tower.
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us