[OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Jun 9 10:37:18 UTC 2020
Jun 9, 2020, 11:08 by sabas88 at gmail.com:
> Il giorno mar 9 giu 2020 alle ore 10:06 Frederik Ramm <> frederik at remote.org> > ha scritto:
>> We are having this discussion because the assumption that if someone is
>> a good programmer they will also be good with gauging the will of the
>> OSM community has proven wrong; iD is a good editor but the iD team has
>> too often treated the community with contempt (to the point of openly
>> violating the code of conduct that the iD team had given themselves) and
>> ignored valid concerns. The relationship hence cannot continue on trust
> IIRC developers tried to approach the tagging list in the past
> but since the tagging process is broken they were expecting the community to fix this.
> What's the outcome of the discussion we had in Heidelberg?
> What if we, as a community, can give clear instructions on tagging
> and letting developers follow the documentation
> instead of regulating software development?
It works well in case of JOSM.
In case of iD there were multiple cases of rejecting, ignoring
and making fun of such documentation (see for example
case of misleading description for highway=track)
iD developers tried to redefine highway=track without consensus:
"Roads for agricultural and forestry use etc." to
"Infrequently maintained minor roads for agricultural and forestry use etc."
This edit was reverted
iD developers are deliberately pushing this incorrect definition
in their editor. See discussions in
confirms that it is a deliberate attempt to force their own definition of
what highway=track should represent
suggest incorrect mapping for the renderer as a "solution"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk