[OSM-talk] Lithuania fancy tagging rules (was: Re: Andy Townsend is above local community?)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

6 cze 2022, 20:24 od tomasstraupis at gmail.com:

> As I've written earlier, I've asked Lithuanian mapping community if
> rigid QA checks should be stopped in Lithuania. I stated that part of
> the problem with such checks is sometimes angry reactions of people
> whose changesets are discussed/reverted. So far I've received one
> answer personally and two on a list: all of them supporting
> continuation of QA job.
> (In case someone wants to check my words:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-lt/2022-June/002717.html)
>
Noone proposes banning QA or claiming that well done QA is bad.

And escriping QA process as a success, describing it as a clearly good thing
and not mentioning any raised issues is obviously likely to result in positive 
feedback. Especially if people opposed already were driven out of OSM
in Lithuania.

And it was not explained at all why you made
that posting (as support for aggressive enforcement of rule that is - at
best - very weid local practice divergent from normal tagging, and
is apparently just a proposal in the first place)

Reasonable complaints included complaints about
- insults
- enforcing extremely unusual and at best problematic rules
- aggressive comments
- blindly following some QA tools or QA tools producing misleading reports
(yes, both waterway=riverbank and natural=water water=river are fine)
- misleading advice/reccomendations
- hostility toward people using typical tools/tagging
- claims about of violations of rules that were not documented as rules
anywhere

none were mentioned in your post or even linked

Rigid QA can be a good thing, enforcing harmful rules in insulting way
is not helpful.

> 2. Claim about all/most of my changeset comments being abusive. Total
> number of changesets I've commented is 1,429. Frederik can provide
> number of changesets which got complains to DWG where I was abusive
> (not the ones where reporter was incorrect), I will try count and
> present a list of changesets where I got thanks (like this one just
> day before yesterday:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121931916). Then we will have
> objective numbers and not subjective impressions.
>
> Numbers, formulas and processes is the way to resolution, not rumours
> and biases.
>
I think that noone reasonable claims that every single of your comments were
abusive.

But making N reasonable comments or ones toward actual vandals adding fake
objects does not entitle anyone to making abusive comments.

Some honest mistakes are fine, but "most of changeset comments and
interactions is not abusive" is not making repeated abuse OK.

Within last moths I closed about 500 spam/troll notes, this does not entitle me
to - say - making 5 abusive notes or vandalising tags on 15 POIs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20220607/0ec11350/attachment.htm>