Changeset: 71745810
Got rid of un-needed park:type tag
Closed by Adamant1
Tags
changesets_count | 11739 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.15.2 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from stevea
park:type is a wiki ( https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:park:type ) Adamant1 himself started, about which HE made contributions to in a table IN that wiki showing, at least initially, that he made some good-faith efforts to reach better consensus to facilitate deprecating the tag. Then, after horrific behavior (petty complaints about wiki syntax, adding contradictory and nonsensical statements to the Page, deleting / censoring / obscuring his bad words and acts into an Archive, introducing the further confusion of his own mistakes and misunderstanding of what was intended to be a helpful concept / talking point, trying to shut down the conversation by stating "more discussion and explanation would convolute things needlessly"...and more!) Adam spectacularly failed to respond well to the (v1 or, after his mess, v2) proposal to go about this in a conciliatory, community-oriented, open fashion so that we may be (politely) systematic in how we deprecate this tag.
Moreover, MULTIPLE TIMES (in the Talk page of that wiki) Adam HIMSELF said "I'm done" (with the process of contributing to efforts to deprecate / systematically remove this tag).
Yet, here, Adam blithely removes the tag (as he did in other changesets in the same day, all tracking my recent edits), doing an end-run around HIS OWN declaration that he is "done" with fixing, correcting or even discussing what is to be done with this flavor of tagging (park:type). He even says why in his changeset comment, for which I offer him thanks, even as I am not thankful for Adam's antagonistic and self-contradictory behavior as he distinctly harasses me.
I don't believe Adam's deletion of park:type tags is a way forward. I ask that if Adam is a man of his word, that he KEEP his word and actually BE "done" with anything having to do with this tag (by his own declaration, and more than once): no more contributions to the park:type wiki (or its Talk page), no more edits having to do with park:type. Adam himself said he would do this, doing a Very Fine Job of uninviting himself from these contributions, then a few days later makes an edit like this, contradicting himself and violating his word that he is "done." I find these actions on a spectrum of unwelcome to downright hostile toward OSM and its tenet of good behavior.
Adam, to be clear: please make no further edits to park:type tags, just as you said you wouldn't in the wiki you started (then fouled with your atrocious behavior). The v2 proposal there and other structured "park" and "public lands" tagging (e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands#State_Public_Lands ) are well underway with multiple Contributors, grow nicely in directions of community consensus, data research, collaboration and resulting improvements in the map. We have grown from one to three states there in the last week and there is discussion of another Contributor soon adding a fourth.
As Adam has stated multiple times "I'm not going to be involved in it. That's for sure" about participating in these improvements in our map's (park) data, I ask simply that Adam be a man of his word and not make edits like this (see also changesets 71745756, 71745750, 71745746, 71745712), undermining his very own words he would not do so. It is transparent to me that Adam tracking my edits and removing tags I have purposefully left in the map because there is an ongoing Discussion in a wiki (again, which Adam himself started) is disingenuous, antagonistic behavior which Adam seems unable to resist even after he has said "I'm done" and "I'm not going to be involved" (in park tagging, park:type tagging or related activity).
Perhaps sticking to fence lines and "adding stuff" is more Adam's kind of mapping.
-
Comment from Adamant1
Nope. I'm not doing this crap with you. I said leave me and my edits the hell alone. So do it. I didn't say I would never re-tag a park again. I said I was done discussing it with you because of your threats, attitude, and inability to not go off or consider feedback. Again, you go off about how I contact you when you say not to. Then you contact me. I'm done with this and your endless harassment. Especially after you threatened to sue me for slander while you keep saying worse things then I did. Stop telling me what to do and don't contact me again like I asked you repeatedly not to. Period.
-
Comment from Adamant1
(For further reference also see changeset 71432976. Where SteveA already contacted me about this after I already asked him not to talk to me anymore and where I already addressed this subject in detail.)
-
Comment from stevea
(And yet, Adam DID do "this crap" with OSM, even as he simultaneously says "I'm not.") It is easy to be confused by Adam's "say one thing, do another" behavior. I have now seen it so often and so persistently by him that to me, it seems deliberate on his part, or if it isn't it deliberate, it doesn't appear it is something he is able to control. Either way, "say one thing, then do another" is behavior OSM shouldn't tolerate. Especially when coupled with vulgarities and inflammatory language (as in Adam's post above).
Disagreeing with edits, or calling somebody out when they say they won't do something, (then they do exactly the opposite), isn't "going off," (more exaggeration on Adam's part) it is being reasonable about somebody who does not appear to be able to abide by the tenets of OSM: namely, asking somebody not to do something he said he wouldn't do after he (repeatedly) uninvited himself from participation. This "what I can't seem to do in the wiki I'll do by tracking Steve's edits and botch them with still-under-construction-consensus tagging — regardless that the greater community continues to discuss these issues." That is not being simply "selfish" with "my edits," that is being a bad actor in a community where we SHARE the good development of a map database. It is that plain, it is that simple. The facts speak for themselves. Running away from the bright light of truth being shined in Adam's direction might have worked for a time, but the community sees Adam for what he is.
OSM is an OPEN project. Any contributor who has an expectation to "have their edits left alone" is participating in the wrong project. OSM is "map well" and standing by (perhaps being a bit proud of) your contributions. OSM is NOT about making every edit/subject/topic/comment/wiki post an "I'm right, you're wrong" contest, as is Adam's habit.
I have never threatened Adam; this is another slanderous untruth on his part. I have personally and directly warned Adam (as I should) not to slander me with hyperbole in his remarks (which he just did by saying I threatened him — it is plain for all to see that I haven't). His remarks often directly contradict what I (and even he himself) have recently said, even in the same thread, so it is easy to prove that Adam is the one who exaggerates, stretching to the breaking point the words of others so far out of context that they bend and break as yet another untruth told by Adam. Or even slander: "a false statement damaging to a person's reputation." I (and any reasonable person would) tire of Adam's repeated (and provably so) slanderous exaggerations. That isn't a threat, that is simply saying what happened: should you have the buckets of patience required to follow Adam's repeated, sad acts, you can easily make that determination for yourself, dear reader.
With patience and a polite tone, I will continue to "call out" Adam's less-than-positive-contributions to OSM as I see them, as I should, as any other contributor to the project should. Eventually, after months and years of Adam's repeated abusive, impolite, harshly critical and seldom constructive, insulting, self-contradictory behavior to and at (almost never "with") me and other well-meaning volunteers in this project, the greater OSM community more and more clearly sees Adam for what he is: a deeply disruptive influence here. While he might make positive contributions (drawing dirt tracks and marking fence lines), he has effectively written himself out of meaningful contributions with regard to parks, park:type and public lands, especially as the consensus in those topic is fragile and continues to emerge. Simply put, Adam can't make or have constructive dialog about these topics (he has proven that over and over again — see park:type:Talk). So, how can he be expected to make good map edits about them?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out the bad (abusive, insulting, inflammatory, slanderous...) acts of others in this project, especially as I and others strive mightily to do so factually, while maintaining a polite tone and proper decorum as we do so. (Though, truly, I distinctly TIRE of it). I apologize to the greater community that somebody has to keep doing this over and over again. On the bright side, there are longer-term solutions to bad actors and disruptive influences in OSM.
-
Comment from Adamant1
This kind of long, unproductive message full of personal attacks and comments like "Perhaps sticking to fence lines and "adding stuff" is more Adam's kind of mapping" are the epitome of going off and are the exact opposite of civil. I gave a detailed and civil response about this already in changeset 71432976. Which you had every opportunity to respond to in a substantive, constructive manor. It's not on me that you decided not to and went with this kinds of un-constructive personal messages instead. Your allowed to disagree with me that things should be tagged a certain way or not, but your continued negative attitude toward me and my edits crosses the line into the verbal abuse and harassment. You have plenty of opportunity to go about this civilly and you haven't.
So, as I said before, I'm done with you and I'm done with anything having to do with the subject AS IT RELATES TO YOU. Respect that and drop it already. Don't message me about it again. I've already reported you twice for your arguing and attitude and if you contact me again in the same manor you have been, especially as it relates to this subject, I'll continue reporting you until it actually has an effect.
-
Comment from stevea
The suggestion to stick to mapping Adam already knows is intended to give him a positive path towards productive mapping, should he choose to take it. It is precisely crafted to BE civil. It was/is not meant as an attack, though it may qualify as damning him with faint praise.
Whether Adam and I "disagree" about how something should or shouldn't be tagged is a red herring, a trick magicians and deceivers use to misdirect attention. The real issue here is that Adam spectacularly failed in any ability to discuss in a civil matter the matter of park:type (a wiki he started): opportunity HE squandered. He fouled that discussion miserably with virtually constant abusive invective, then when he uninvited himself from further discussion (which he appears to be unable to do constructively), he targeted my recent improvements to Public Lands tagging to "remove park:type tags ANYWAY, be DAMNED the fact there is an active Discussion going on." This, in the wiki Adam himself started, then fouled. Then he trails my map edits and tosses me a middle finger that he'll edit the map any old way he wants? That's so clearly disrespectful of our map I don't need to say anything further about it. Yet that's what happened here.
I am not arguing. I am pointing to Adam's behavior and calling it what it is. I don't like this (at all) and ask for relief from the DWG and other higher-ups in OSM from Adam's near-constant abuse, slander, invective, untruths, exaggerations, mischaracterizations and most important of all, pollution of data in our map with not only bad data, but very bad acts on how to reach civil agreement about how GOOD edits in our map SHOULD happen.
I have offered and continue to offer a gentlemanly approach, I believe others see that and see Adam's behavior for what it is. Let the chips fall where they may, and soon please, as I'm certain the entire community is completely fed up with Adam's burn-it-all-to-the-ground approach to virtually everything he says and does. That isn't hyperbole, go look up Adam's activities for yourself. It makes me grateful we are an Open project, as I have nothing to hide.
- Comment from mapman44
-
Comment from freebeer
how is it that i have had reasonably civilised conversations with both parties, yet here things fall apart in a way i do not like to read in me drunken state (if you're gonna flame, be creative, you wunch of bankers. no that's not creative)
i'd quote iandees but personally i'd give up. and that's after five beers on a summer day (not quite 30 yet) which i will probably regret after a couple hours of sobering up.
never map drunk. or browse changeset comments. never do anything drunk. never drink. water excepted.
p.s.: bench is cast iron supports now.
-
Comment from Adamant1
No clue. Maybe being drunk would help. I map buzzed sometimes, but it mostly leads to me staring at the map in some random place without blinking for long periods while mumbling "wow" repeatedly. So, I don't think it would help the conversation any. Except maybe to cause it to not occur in the first place. Which would be totally great in my book.
Anyway, talking about benches have you seen those park benches with metal spikes where you have to pay to sit down? At least your not sleeping on one of those.
What's the opposite of namaste for when your leaving? Whatever it is, I'll go with that.
Adamant1
-
Comment from woodpeck
For reference, both users being asked to play nice in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2989 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2990
-
Comment from Adamant1
Woodpeck, I appreciate yours and the DWG's involvement in this finally. While I'm 100% responsible for my own behavior and have zero urge to "play the victim", I would appreciate it if you could clarify a few things for me so similar things don't happen in the future. So I was wondering if I can private message you about this. Without my questions being taken as a bad faith move or as an insult to you and other DWG members.
Thanks
-
Comment from stevea
I'd say to ask it in the open and it would be better.
-
Comment from stevea
Adamant1 just contacted me via private message after being told many many many times that this is unwelcome, yet he persists in doing so. He appears to be trying to "do something" by this (and keeping it private) after above he immediately asked to do this (keep it private) with woodpeck. I find this disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst.
As I have said many times, and as Open is our first name: this sort of dispute does not end well by being spoken about in hushed tones behind everybody's back. It only benefits by being spoken about in the open.
Let's keep any discussion with full candor in the open, please. What woodpeck wrote was unambiguous, as clear as crystal to me; it seems anybody would able to understand.
-
Comment from stevea
"anybody would BE able to understand."
-
Comment from Adamant1
I contacted you privately to say I wasn't going to respond to your comment here because I didn't want to get us both in trouble for discussing things publicly when we were told not to. He was pretty crystal clear about us not contacting each other. Which you did, again, after being told not to. I was trying to save your skin by saying privately to leave it until he responded. I don't want either of us to get banned. That's it. The message was ultimately to your benefit. Not mine. I'm not sure why your doing things contradictory to that or why your insulted by me trying to keep us from getting in trouble by private messaging you after you contacted me first. So it wouldn't be yet another useless public argument like this is already starting to turn into. I guess your heads just not at the same place as mine though and that's fine, but there was no bad intent behind any of my actions. Anyone can private message anyone for whatever reason anyway. Although, I said in the message I rather have these conversations out in open. Which you seem to have ignored.
As I explained in the private message, I would be 100% open to asking my questions here if Woodpeck is OK with it. I asked if I could private message him because it was what come up off the top of my head and also because I didn't want to run over the arbitrary allotted comment length we keep getting called out on. That was it. I was also clear that I would say the exact same thing here I said in the private message. It had zero to do with being disingenuous or deceitful. There's no way to be deceitful if I'm repeating exactly the same thing in both places. Obviously.
Ultimately I have zero preference for where I ask the questions or even if I get to ask them at all. It wasn't that important anyway and it's definitely not worth all this. Honestly at this point, I rather just skip it and go on to doing other, better things in OpenStreetMap. I"m sure everyone else would prefer it also. So that's probably what I'll do. For the benefit of everyone. I don't think you even read the private message. If you had of, you would have noticed that me asking the questions would have been to your benefit. I guess that's down the drain now though due to how your acting here and that it made me decide it's just not worth it. Sadly, it never was.
Anyway, I won't be responding to you here or anywhere else again. Let alone contacting you in private or public at all. Id appreciate it if you honored the wishes of everyone involved, including both of us, and do the same. Since your the one that initiated contact again when you were told not to. There was zero reason to comment about my message to Woodpeck. There was probably zero reason for me to make this comment also, but whatever. Such is life and the draw back of staying up way late.
Thank you and goodbye to everyone. Off to sleep. Hopefully to map another day (fingers crossed).
Adamant1
-
Comment from stevea
I did not contact the individual known as Adamant1 as he said I did above; that is yet another of his untruths. I did state in this public place that he private-messaged me after being warned — an hour before by an administrator who blocked him as well as by me (at least a dozen times) — to (yet again) NOT CONTACT ME. I, stevea, consider such continuing behavior by the individual known as Adamant1 as criminal electronic harassment under California Penal Code §653.2 and §646.9. "No" means "no." Civil remedies are available to me as well. This is not "playing victim," it is black-letter law. My experience of harassment is real, the damages to my reputation and OSM are real. If anyone wishes to now characterize me as "whistleblowing," that's fine with me.
The perpetrator keeps saying "I won't be responding..." yet he keeps responding. Make of that what you will, OSM community. There was not "zero reason" for me to comment, we were just told to avoid contact, yet Adam back-channeled both of us (keeping his words in the dark from each other and the community). It should be obvious to all what his "partitioning" does here; nothing more need be said about it.
I have no idea why things aren't clear to Adam. Things are crystal-clear to me: my four-word reply to woodpeck said "Sounds about right, thanks."
Less talk; more mapping. Map. Map well.
-
Comment from stevea
OSM community: I once again apologize to you for this spectacle and the difficulty I faced in dealing with it. I will strive to continue to do my best in facing these (hopefully rare) frictions as they occur should they rear their ugly head in the future. And may it never happen to you or your OSM fellow volunteer contributors. If it does, I only ask that you do your best to identify bad behavior as you see it and point it out to the greater community with aplomb and civility.
Nodes (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |