[OSM-talk] Returning to the question of collateral damage

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Thu Feb 10 18:37:38 GMT 2011

Edward Hillsman wrote:
> We refer to the OSM community, and the need to respect the work of 
> others. The way this particular situation was handled could have done 
> a much better job of respecting the work of others. If software needs 
> to be modified to make it easier to show such respect, then I hope 
> those who have the skill and knowledge to make such modifications 
> will do so. If the organization takes action against one mapper that 
> can cause collateral damage to the work of other mappers, I think it 
> has a responsibility to minimize the amount of damage and, where 
> some damage cannot be avoided, to provide information that could 
> help in repairing it.

No-one's disputing that.

These are good guys here, working their behinds off in order to minimise the
amount of damage done by one person.

All tools get better with feedback. This has all been useful feedback, and I
know there have been some discussions today about how the operation can be
improved next time round. It will be improved, just as every other tool
that's used in OSM has been and is improved: editors like JOSM, Merkaartor
and Potlatch, renderers like Mapnik and Maperitive, and so on. Our
development community has a really good track record of continuous

Please, you (and John Eldredge and anyone else) don't need to write any more
long screeds on this particular micro-topic, the message is understood.


View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Returning-to-the-question-of-collateral-damage-tp6012832p6012871.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the talk mailing list