Response to Andy and DWG

Posted by badenk on 14 May 2022 in English (English).

Hi Andy and DWG:

I did not take composing this response lightly. I have always mapped assuming good faith and intelligence with co-mappers, both which have seemingly diminished.

If I got a message about a changeset, I first checked the author’s edit count (i.e. experience), and whether they were locally mapping. You can visit my message list to see that I went well out of my way to address legitimate queries.

recent examples:

If the author has minimal edits and no local presence, I will not encourage trolls. I especially detest, as probably many others also do, bird-doggers who have zero interest in the local mapping, and whose total focus is on policing, often using external tools. I do not know of any individuals who enjoy being watched over their shoulders.

A perfect example of this is:

The author had unbelievably zero edits and brazenly stated, “I’m sure that you’ve been asked several times”, when in actuality, I never had been.

Another mapper joined the recent fray from nowhere. It looks like his modus operandi is already recognised:

And another with zero edits:

Andy, as for the “asked more than once previously”, whom are you referring to? I only saw that one message a few months ago. You insinuated that there was a huge hue and cry. A bunch of BS on some external blog does not cut it.

As for the comments, the two machines I predominately use for OSM do not have keyboards, so even writing a few words is a chore. Additionally, it impossible to edit those comments, even when they are misplaced and incorrect. Thus, I cannot imagine those comments having any real value except for the pseudo policia.

As for the sources, I am not sure if you know, but the imagery source used is automatically added to the OSM changeset database. Additionally, I frequently checked and used all the imagery available on my editors, so each node or way could have had multiple exclusive sources. If I used external imagery, such as Sentinel2, I normally attributed it.

Until May 3, everything seemed to be fine. I had been contentedly and diligently mapping the same way for years, without any objection. I have over 12 000 edits, which probably consumed well over 10 000 hours of my volunteered and dedicated time. I prided myself on top quality mapping and mapping entirely new routes, notably railways.

On May 3, one rude, obnoxious and ignorant individual named “Herman Lee” instigated and propagated this recent shitshow, and that should be readily apparent to any competent person. Why did he or you not respond to my queries when I asked why he sent 8 messages in less than 90 minutes, all containing large inexplicable binaries? I still consider his actions nefarious, especially considering a zero explanation.

Andy, you sent me a (DWG) message to respond, and then when I went to do so, I found you had blocked my account. I hope you can discern the ludicrous irony there? Maybe you think that that most OSM dweebs are spending most their time in their mother’s basements dedicated to OSM? I already know I spent (wasted?) too much OCD time on OSM, and my intermittent connections and other real responsibilities have prevented any more.

As for my guide lines and circles that I have been using for many years, it became acceptable to me when I noticed that OSM was riddled with millions of metres of “Hires” ways. I initially and ironically was deleting some of them, as I erroneously thought they were blatant commercial promotion for jobs, such as “Yahoo Hires” and “Bing Hires”, versus the actually intended term ‘high resolution’.

When I mapped new features, especially railway curves, I initially estimated the size and radius, and then with updated imagery, sized and aligned them more accurately. Maybe you did not know, but railway curves have a constant radius, which is well mapped using a template circle. The beauty was, if the placement was off, I only had to quickly move the line or circle and all the attached nodes moved with it. Conversely, each node would need to be individually moved, which would take substantial effort and time.

I also extensively used Sentinel2Explorer on new railway projects. Occasionally, I temporarily added the “highway=path” tag to make the way visible on Sentinel2Explorer, which AFAIK, was the only publicly accessible ‘real time’ and recent imagery. I could then get visible overlay feedback on OSM ways inside Sentinel2Explorer after the change propagated. Often, clear images could take weeks or longer. With what I did, there was no lasting visibility on publicly available maps. After I was satisfied with my way’s accuracy, I deleted the guidelines. Maximal mapping accuracy was consistently my objective, not adhering to a few valueless directives.

I would be interested if a more proficient individual than I could suggest any better method to map new ways without existing imagery.

My temporary additions contrasted to the proliferation of millions of incorrectly imported hash tag highway paths and other objects destined to persist indefinitely and which are actually non-existent. You seemed to have been able to delete most my ~thousand remaining guidelines in three seconds, which indicates it was not actually a problem. The fact that drawing each circle guideline consumed 30 minutes or more of my time was immaterial. I do not think DWG will be addressing with the same vigour all the useless “hires” lines and millions of errant “paths”.

My enjoyment value had been steady declining. A year or two ago, my WWW browsers stopped functioning to edit OSM. A month or two ago, my WWW browsers stopped functioning to even view OSM. A side effect from this, is I cannot even respond to emailed OSM links, as I have to first obtain another computer to view OSM, for which I first need to forward the emailed queries to.

Minimal appreciation and maximal policing along with an autocratic approach to any differences has culminated to where I think it is best that I take a sustained, and possibly permanent, vacation from this project.

thanks, Baden

Comment from Anton Khorev on 14 May 2022 at 14:03

If you can use JOSM, try the Fillet command from its CommandLine plugin. It allows you to make rounded corners on a way by entering a radius.

Comment from EnumMapper on 19 May 2022 at 22:37

I can see that you are a great and responsible mapper. I’m sorry to hear what happened.

Using repetitive changeset descriptions should not be a problem, especially when mapping new areas.

Auxiliary lines can be controversial. It may be better to reach some consensus with local mappers.

Comment from Herman Lee on 20 May 2022 at 01:05

我的留言并没有存在大量的奇怪字符,我认为这些字符的出现可能是网页解码器存在一些问题。 从这里可以看出,我的留言并没有问题,FreedSky也问过同样的问题,您似乎也并没有公开回复。
我感到非常奇怪的是,为什么我的评论和问题就石沉大海了呢?我发送的几封站内信也没有回复,而您会去回答其他人的问题? I have gotten ZERO explanation from you until this diary! 就 看来,您似乎已经意识到辅助线存在的问题,我不能理解的是为什么继续使用而不删除辅助线?还是说您并没有意识到自己的问题?就 看来,这个编辑集与社区关切的问题是没有关系的,不涉及辅助线的问题。
平心而论,您的辅助线确实是让多个编辑者感到反感,而您提到的zero editor,他们有的并不是没有经验,有的可能是关心社区的数据开发和使用者,何必要指责他们呢?您似乎没有做到以直报怨吧(我承认有的时候我做的也不是很好)。
不知道你们(@Bandek,@EnumMapper)是否看过这篇日记: ,依照您的描述来说,似乎并没有看过吧。

Comment from 喵耳引力波 on 20 May 2022 at 02:35



第二,不要混淆话题,辅助线确实是非常争议性的,它确实不受欢迎,且非常不利于其他用户继续维护数据。在 里,您显然应当自己删掉自己的辅助线,而不是期待别人来动手。

第三,指责别人是0 changeset从而认为对方没资格谈论自己,是不是有点过分?您怎么敢断定别人没有专用于编辑的额外账号呢?

Comment from 喵耳引力波 on 20 May 2022 at 02:38

The beauty was, if the placement was off, I only had to quickly move the line or circle and all the attached nodes moved with it.


Comment from Herman Lee on 20 May 2022 at 03:15

The beauty was, if the placement was off, I only had to quickly move the line or »circle and all the attached nodes moved with it. 这既是优点,亦是一大缺憾 这个可以用多选去解决,这并不是一个合适的理由,反而留下这些会影响正常的编辑,比如复线、线关系和侧线,并且,你还画了许多奇怪的三角形,这个是我们更不能理解的

Comment from Herman Lee on 20 May 2022 at 03:16

The beauty was, if the placement was off, I only had to quickly move the line or circle and all the attached nodes moved with it.



Comment from mariotomo on 20 May 2022 at 12:12

hi ‘badenk’. You have all my sympathy regarding the poor experience with Andy as a representative of the DWG. You do not have my support for your changeset commenting style.

Have a look at your changeset description statistics on neis-one. You consistently use a standard form of commenting, limiting yourself to something like “corrected tags and points ", approximately in 12200 of your 12450 changesets. Well, obviously you corrected tags and points (or alignments) in the changeset extension box. there's little else you can do with a geographic database, other than alter non-geographic and geographic data (tags and points).

You yourself provide a much better changeset comment, as a reply to a motivated local mapper who managed to have you explain your intentions — what you were doing, on what you based your contribution. The problem is that this came after the local mapper expressed doubts about your changeset, and after you judged the local mapper worthy of an answer (if I may so rephrase your initial statement, how you decide whether or not to reply on comments you receive).

If you would anonymously and collectively consider the whole of OSM worthy of the same consideration, and provide a description of your: intentions; motivations; reasoning on which you base a changeset, as a changeset comment, each time, instead of your repetitive “I did what I did”, you would spare OSM a lot of time-waste and friction, and yourself all this unpleasant DWG attention.

oh, and don’t forget to either delete your construction lines, or to clearly tag them as such, if you insist in keeping them into this global database with millions of contributors and thousands of reviewers.

see you out there, Mario.

Login to leave a comment