OpenStreetMap

WOF#2. Thanks all the guys for promises to kill me

Posted by WorstFixer on 11 May 2012 in English (English)

I am ready to discuss.

I listen to you attentively. I put notes.

Why no mailinglist post?

any large OSM maillist workflow

Won't work. Ever. Maybe only if you write that to dead local mailing list. Where nobody reads anyway.

Have a look at our license change. Workflow #1. When the fuck will they finish?!

I propose alternative. It is not ideal. Nobody is ideal. But it will work. Because it needs people with editors. Not bureaucrats with mail boxes.

WOF workflow

I work on scheme #2, until someone proposes better option in non-blocking discussion.

If you want to make schemes, you can use XMind software for that. It is free. Doubleclick for block, Ctrl+L for line. Screenshot to export. http://www.xmind.net/

Comment from z-dude on 12 May 2012 at 23:59

You seem to have a negative attitude about the way other people do things based on the words you use.

If your tag improvement idea was so great, then you'd get buy in. If you meet apathy to your tagging scheme, then your scheme isn't that great.

Adding swear words isn't going to get your more buy in.

Hide this comment

Comment from woodpeck on 13 May 2012 at 09:32

Dear WorstFixer,

I said it before and I am going to say it one last time. Before you "clean up" anything in the future, you must discuss this publicly; in the case of the "nmixter cleanup", talk-us or the talk list would have been appropriate places to do so. It is important for this process that there is a "blocking" discussion; it is unacceptable for one party to mess with the database first and then ask questions later; among other things, this leads to unnecessary database bloat (remember we keep all history).

This is true even if the person whose edits you are "cleaning" has agreed in private conversation.

I will explain the same to nmixter.

Your account will be blocked if you make one more automated edit that violates the discuss-before-you-act rule.

Bye Frederik

Hide this comment

Comment from Matt on 13 May 2012 at 18:55

As the result of some "Caring Community Reviews" in the past, there is a code of conduct for automated edits on the wiki. The code of conduct is some simple rules so that the whole community is able to work together without "enthusiasm death", or any other kind of death.

As Frederik says above, and important part of this code of conduct is a discussion with members of the whole community in the affected areas, so that there is no misunderstanding the purpose or the effect that the automated edit is supposed to have. It is important that this discussion take place before the automated edit so that mistakes can be caught early. It does not need to block implementation or testing, but should be taken into account before upload. Think of it as a "Caring Community Preview".

If you encounter problems on the mailing list with people behaving inappropriately, then please contact the moderators for a breach of etiquette. It is sad to say, but there are a few people who appear to take pleasure in nay-saying or needless argumentation, and they should be referred to the moderators.

Please do not think I am trying to prevent you from doing something useful, I am only trying to decrease the potential for friction in the community due to large, unilateral, undiscussed actions.

Cheers,

Matt

Hide this comment

Comment from WorstFixer on 13 May 2012 at 19:43

Matt,

Thanks for pointing at Etiquette page. It must be made more visible.

I have etiquette question. Imagine user WorstFixer willing to do some edits. Imagine community posting "I found no tagging errors in this edit". And some user with administrative privileges disagrees saying "you bloat database". Is there any thing that can be done in such situation?

Hide this comment

Comment from nmixter on 13 May 2012 at 20:44

He did indeed contact me. He said he wanted to remove 85000 ele=0 tags. He said he just wanted to take out just the tags not needed and not change the shape at all. I didn't see a reason why not, so I told him to feel free to make the changes he needed. While there may not be any problems with the changes he made, the proper guidelines still need to be followed. I think the person really has a passion for making the map better. I think he sees what he did wrong and has a desire to do the right thing. I am looking forward to seeing his positive contributions in the future.

Hide this comment

Comment from Matt on 14 May 2012 at 13:06

WorstFixer,

Bloating the database does not, on its own, make a good reason for stopping. However, Frederik's actual words were

"it is unacceptable for one party to mess with the database first and then ask questions later; among other things, this leads to unnecessary database bloat."

Perhaps the example he picked from 'among other things' was weak, but the code of conduct is clear: Please discuss large-scale, automated changes before making them. And asking someone to adhere to the code of conduct is not, in itself, a breach of etiquette. If there were further breaches of etiquette, then you may feel it necessary to refer them to the moderators.

Personally, I see the removal of default-value tags like "ele=0" or the pointless series of "is_in" tags as a very good thing! However, one person - or a small group - does not make a community, and discussing things together means that everyone is included, reasons are understood, and there is less friction and unpleasantness.

Like nmixter, I look forward to seeing your positive contributions in the future.

Cheers,

Matt

Hide this comment

Comment from MaZderMind on 21 May 2012 at 19:11

Dear WorstFixer,

why did you mass-add tags to ways that build up relations? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23623225

We now have thousands of unnamed boundary-areas that overlap each other. I can see any reason for doing this, but I'm sure you can explain it.

Peter

Hide this comment

Comment from WorstFixer on 21 May 2012 at 19:31

Peter,

Here is what wiki says on that: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

"Ways for borders will then only have boundary=administrative and the admin_level=* for the highest border (when a country, state, county are on the same way the admin_level would be 2)."

This is performed mit full accordance to wiki.

Hide this comment

Leave a comment

Parsed with Markdown

  • Headings

    # Heading
    ## Subheading

  • Unordered list

    * First item
    * Second item

  • Ordered list

    1. First item
    2. Second item

  • Link

    [Text](URL)
  • Image

    ![Alt text](URL)

Login to leave a comment