Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen wrote: > But you stooped anyway. Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Why create a situation in which stooping is a possibility? My opinion is exactly the opinion you've been projecting onto this mailing list at others. If that were your ob

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

Am 24.05.2019 um 19:37 schrieb Kevin Kenny: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: >> On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: >>> Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would >>> listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a >>> financ

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike wrote: > > I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this > mailing list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some > sense it feels like stooping to your level. > But you stooped anyway. Fair enough, you're enti

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> > It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you. It wasn't here > before. It seems that anything > that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic. Anyone who points out that > we didn't have any > noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic. In short, you appear to > be using "tox

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

I don't believe there is any purpose being served by this back-and-forth. I could kind of justify it for a bit in that it's demonstrating my original points about decorum, but that's a dead horse now. I think drawn-out rehashings of a particular proposal thread should probably go in that thread, s

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten wrote: > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual >> impairment (...) > > > Nevertheless, I said low vision. > Potatoes, potahtoes. Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good analogy. Here's what you said: Anyway

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment (...) Nevertheless, I said low vision. > You implied it. I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case. > It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others. Not in the context of the re

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten wrote: > > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. > > 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment: The *legal* definit

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. 2) I didn't say you hated anyone. 3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually believe that. The hope was that those making these claims w

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten wrote: > Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. I noticed when you called me condescending. claims about how mapping these things don't matter, despite the use cases I

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

> Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" It doesn't, actually. "Making it personal" means unduly making it about someone else, personally. Making them have a personal stake. But even if it d

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote: But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" And yet, this thread is devolving into

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

> But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. I kept it fairly vague. I made no references to any threads. I've actually explicitly avoided making it personal. And yet, this thread is devolving into personal attacks. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my point

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote: Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin. If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you mak

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would > > listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a > > financial conflict of interest to be highly inappr

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at mailing list, update if there is something wrong with it? Yes, exactly! And sometimes the thing that's "wrong with it" is just that it's vague, does not adequately address exceptions, or doesn't have enough examples for people i

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. I'm not going to participate in that, aside to clarify that the quote regarding use cases of crossings and their relevance to pedestrian safety and people with disabilities was in response to both a personal accusation ("obsessive") and se

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

24 May 2019, 18:56 by nbol...@gmail.com: > Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for > communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items > at the end of most discussions  > What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten wrote: > This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I > mentioned... > Projection much? There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to > speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact.

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)From: Nick Bolten To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned...There is a toxic habit that&#

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned... There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

You make good points. Creating tools for editing OSM is a bit of a nightmare already (we've had many students try and fail) before having to grapple with tag decisions. Here's what you have to do when figuring out how to implement most tags beyond the few "easy" ones like highway=primary: - Visit

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> iD is not a general topic here, but with the tendency of introducing new tags via presets, sometimes even where there are established alternative tags (...) Sorry, I misstated my meaning. Instead of "the topic of this mailing list" it should say, "the topic of this thread". > I guess sooner or

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that disagreed

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:46 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > 24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de: > > OSMF endorses > this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it > an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and > validation.

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would > listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a > financial conflict of interest to be highly inappropriate. [...] Please don't put words into my mouth here - i have sa

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 15:47 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > That's human nature too, really. Those who agree with the consensus > have little incentive to speak up, and those who disagree will be > highly motivated to seize the opportunity to argue for their ideas. > Nevertheless, that's why a forum that

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Friday 24 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be > considered as better than iD that was refused without a good reason? > There is Potlatch 2, but relying on Flash immediately makes it worse > (even assuming that interface and design

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:49 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > You should not assume just because people articulate all kinds of > strange views and opinions on these channels that are evidently flawed > that the discourse on a whole is pointless. I'm not asserting that it is pointless - I'm still he

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de: > OSMF endorses > this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it > an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and > validation. > Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be considered as better th

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > This is evidently something that is becoming more and more > > important as OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly > > difficult for a single person to be knowledgable about every aspect > > of

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 13:32 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > I continue listening carefully to this mailing list, toping to glean useful > information from it. IT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS. > Well, for me for example https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043350.html

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 09:56, Simon Poole wrote: > > I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints > (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate > with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get > their way" as

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: This is evidently something that is becoming more and more important as OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly difficult for a single person to be knowledgable about every aspect of it. In the din of voices here, how does one assess who i

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Hola Nick, On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:17PM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote: > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to > gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and You can broaden that up - All tools around OSM. Same applies hier to all

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project > > with a controlled decision-making process. This means that many > > things have to be discussed over and over, and the community > > generally doesn't speak with one voice. But this a

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten : > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is > to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and > sometimes on Github issues). > iD is not a general topic here, but with the tendency o

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Am 24.05.2019 um 00:59 schrieb Nick Bolten: > > The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already > strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic > on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-) > > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing l

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Every person on this mailing list participates in many of these kinds of discussions (...) I have never seen one where there was someone suggesting a change to a tag and at least some of those negative bullet points didn't apply. > I think you should attempt to apply a little of that "acknowled

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:39 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a > controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to > be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak > with one voice. But th

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Hi, On 5/23/19 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote: > OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of > these mailing lists. It might; that doesn't invalidate points made on these mailing lists though! > # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts: > - Very friendly, all focused on

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-) So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to gripe about how the iD edit

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Don't you think that an accusation without a proof (link to mailing list archive where I can re-read the discussion that happened at that time) makes your claims more substantial? Yes, it would substantiate the claim. It would also increase tensions, so I'm not going to dive into that unless it'

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

These are some valid points, and I also have some input to that, but are you sure you want to discuss this on the tagging ML? The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect inst

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

23 May 2019, 21:58 by nbol...@gmail.com: > in-person > Well, it is hard to beat in-person contact. > , personal emails, slack, etc. > My experience with both and mailing lists is very similar as far as quality of conversation goes. For: > - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a co

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Hi Nick, Am 23.05.19 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Bolten: > # My experience with this mailing list: > - Quick to exasperate. > - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith. > - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at. > - The same 8 or so people respond to posts

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

Hello, Le 23.05.19 à 21:58, Nick Bolten a écrit : > My experience with this mailing list: the current situation have several issues, indeed but I think you should confuse this mailing with somewhere else, because I don't recognize the majority of abstract examples you're talking about. > offende

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message). OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists.

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

ias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)From: Mateusz Konieczny To: CC: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de:reverse this development.Yes

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de: > reverse this development. > Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message). > I had to rewrite