[OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
simon at poole.ch
Mon May 27 10:07:08 UTC 2019
The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.
As I see it we can choose between
- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)
- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)
- put in place a code of conduct for developers that want their code
deployed on osm.org and other OSMF sites with minimum requirements on
transparency and community interaction (the irony of this is not lost on
me, and it is not clear who would enforce this)
- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
- engaging with the respective employers and ask them to rectify the
situation (obviously there's a big hole in this one)
That's probably about it.
Am 23.05.2019 um 18:11 schrieb Markus:
> Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
> I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
> here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
>> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread just to express disagreement is not very helpful.
> While i really appreciate the work you and the other developers have
> put into iD, i find it demotivating and harmful that you refuse other
>> Some people will disagree, and that's ok.
> So far, everybody except you disagreed. If there is a clear majority,
> i expect the iD developers to follow it.
> Moreover, this validation rule infringes upon these policies or guidelines:
> * Automated Edits code of conduct
> You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway to
> platforms. This is an automated edit.
> * Map what's on the ground
> A platform is not a footway.
> * Don't map for the renderer
> It's rater "don't map for the router", but the effect is the same.
>> There exists no master list of all the routable features in OSM. This is because people are always making up tags. It is unreasonable to expect mappers and data consumers to "just know" what all the tags are that are routable.
> If the problem is the lack of a list of all routable features in OSM,
> then it should be solved by creating such a list, not by mapping for
> the router. (By the way, routable tags aren't added very frequently.)
> I guess it should also be possible to create a "routable" property for
> Wikibase (data items).
> I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision, to not block opinions
> that differ from yours and to listen more to the community.
> Best regards
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the talk