[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Sat Oct 3 01:29:30 BST 2009


Jukka Rahkonen writes:

 > You seem to believe that SteveC would make such a decision that
 > makes you happy.  How about if he says that if you want people to
 > continue working with OSM "in creative, productive, or unexpected
 > ways" then true/false, yes/no, and 0/1 issue must be tolerated.

That's okay, too.  What I want, what I REALLY want, is for SteveC to
be able to exercise leadership without being told that he's evil for
doing so.

There's a set of people who feel that mappers shouldn't be given
guidance, because if they accidentally don't follow it, they'll feel
bad and might stop mapping.  But there's also a set of mappers who are
editing because they want to create the best map possible.  We change
true and 1 to yes when we edit something.  And we want to know what is
the "proper" way to mark a road as having no name.  Going to the wiki
and finding nine different schemes (none of which are supported by the
Noname renderer) is not helpful.

I'm 100% in favor of freedom.  I'm 100% in favor of free-form
tagging.  But I'm also 100% in favor of guidance from experienced
editors.

Oh, to hell with it.  I'll just mark the damned road noname=yes, and
if you find a road with no name and YOU mark it noname=yes, then good
for you.  And if not, then I don't have to cooperate with you either.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241    
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog       




More information about the talk mailing list