[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
zerebubuth at gmail.com
Sun Oct 4 19:20:09 BST 2009
On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> That said, I believe it a mistake to NOT have perfect consistency as a
> goal even though that goal cannot be achieved. If you don't know
> where you're going in the long term you'll likely go in circles in the
> short term. Like this discussion.
i'll keep this short, then ;-)
> Matt Amos writes:
> > On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> > you seem to be advocating for a tag with the sole purpose of not
> > rendering something in a single renderer. to me, that seems wrong.
> No, that's not the sole purpose. See my reply to Andrew which you
> should have already received.
so the purpose is to indicate to other mappers, including via the
nonames renderer and other debugging tools, that there is no name? so
you're not tagging what's on the ground (that there is no name),
you're tagging out-of-band information that isn't useful to any
end-users of the map?
> > let me put it a different way: maybe convergence hasn't happened
> > *yet*.
> That argument is not falsifiable; it is no argument at all.
for the noname tag, it isn't measurable. the parallel debate with
oneway=yes/true/1 can be measured, though, and the results are
attached. notwithstanding some bot vandalism in earlier parts of the
year, it's pretty clear that convergence is happening and oneway=yes
is the winner. i would conjecture that convergence isn't specific to
the oneway tag and is happening to all tags, although as you correctly
point out, it's not testable for many tags.
> > note that i didn't say "forced" this time, but i do get the impression
> > that you're suggesting that people should be told what to do and how
> > to tag.
> Yes. I believe in leadership. Imagine that. Google for Servant
> Leadership. Or find out how Quaker meeting's clerks operate. Same
that's a non sequitur. you asked why people are thinking that you're
in favour of people being told what to do. your answer appears to
confirm that, yes; you're in favour of people being told what to do.
> > > The OSM community is hostile to leadership even when that leadership
> > > merely renders advice. Frederick's advice to create a committee to
> > > provide leadership is not useful advice.
> > maybe the community feels that such leadership advice is not useful
> > advice, just as you feel towards frederik's advice?
> Are you agreeing with me that the community is hostile to leadership?
sure - you're part of the community and you're rejecting frederik's
advice. so, by your definition of hostile and your membership of the
community; some of the community is hostile to leadership.
PS: this is a re-post with the png reduced in size to meet this list's
size limit. sorry if anyone gets any duplicates.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 11132 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the talk