[talk-ch] vandalism under the pretense of "simplifying"

RB tanrub at gmail.com
Thu Jun 30 18:06:57 CEST 2022

While the discussion does have added value, requesting a user to stop
mapping upon personal ideas isn't what I understand by "constructive

I have replied quite extensively to your questions despite the fact that
these questions are a digression from my own initial question (how to deal
with a (probably good intioned) user regressing the data.

At no point do I intend to attack you but I do feel defensive when I read
out of topic prescriptive statements. Had I been rude myself, I
sincerely apologize as it wasn't intentional. I won't however accept orders
to comply with personal preferences, especially when these preferences
degrade the data. Again, the solution for users liking sharp and untrue
land cover angles, is to map them where there would be a progress related
to the existing data. Or to improve the data with a better source. Not to
regress the data, change the location of the south east angle of a swamp,

Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 17:53, Kt47uo5uVzW <kt47uo5uVzW at protonmail.com> a
écrit :

> Okay, I give up.
> I wanted a constructive discussion about what makes sense in reality and
> what does not. Instead, only users are attacked.
> Even after asking several times, I don't know more about how you map, how
> you make decisions about what is and isn't forest, etc.
> I dedicate my time again to more expedient things.
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Thursday, June 30th, 2022 at 3:18 PM, RB <tanrub at gmail.com> wrote:
> The arguments that we don't know the exact limit of things apply to most
> mapped entities. It is going to be an assessment anyway. Where people put
> the limit is eventually the consequence of a mix between the time invested,
> the source used as well as the inevitable subjective assessment of the
> individual mapper. The same applies to the exact angle of a castle roof
> <https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=47.3246552&lon=1.0705762&zoom=20&camera.phi=170.226>
> .
> Regarding the changing nature of the vegetation, it is a positive thing.
> It means that over time, people might be able to go back in time using OSM
> history to study the evolution of the land cover.
> "It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping
> until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here."
> This is simply rude. People with a different view should map somewhere
> else instead of destroying existing data. The point I am making is that the
> user regressing the data should be stopped in some way. I don't know if all
> the "simplifying" edits of this user can be reverted or if the user has
> also contributed useful stuff in the same destructive edits.
> Openstreetmap is about mapping the reality without stealing copyrighted
> source with the best some people map temporary camping places in the
> desert, other dog excrement
> <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4661> baskets. All
> motivations are valid as long the data is documented with good accuracy and
> from legal sources. Do I really need to quote the wiki?
> *OpenStreetMap is a free project done by volunteers. Anybody can enter
> anything they wish. That said, a map works best when participants agree on
> a code of conduct. These "Good Practices" are guidelines that will increase
> the quality and value of our map data without any additional effort. Nobody
> is forced to obey them. There might be cases where these guidelines don't
> apply, or even contradict each other.*
> Asking someone who hasn't imported any illegal data and is mapping
> according to existing legal sources to "stop mapping" is ludicrous. Please
> clarify the "we" so that we can put names on the Swiss OSM police taking
> the project away from its good practices.
> Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 15:51, Kt47uo5uVzW <kt47uo5uVzW at protonmail.com> a
> écrit :
>> You pointed out this argument a few times now. We get it and agree that
>> the communication of these mappers could have been better.
>> But I would also like to understand your mapping, because until now I
>> (and felt the majority) are in favor of simplifying the forest areas for
>> arguable reasons. That's why I would ask you to answer Sarah's questions
>> so we can see your motivations and procedures as well.
>> It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping
>> until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here.
>> I hope we can find an objective solution about how detailed forest
>> mapping makes sense. Thank you for your assistance.
>> Sent with Proton Mail <https://proton.me/> secure email.
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 6:49 AM, RB <tanrub at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with you, it is probably not intentional. However, I see it as a
>> problem. I dit write to the user.
>> The way I see it is the following.
>> Many Africans don't know how westerners like to eat their spaghettis. For
>> most Westerners, rolling them around the fork is part of the fun, while
>> most Africans overcook the pastas and cut them short. I was served a lot of
>> spaghettis cut in small pieces by my host in Africa. It's not a big deal
>> and always good intentioned but it would certainly start to be problematic
>> if a person with the same good intentions would go to the supermarket and
>> start breaking all the spaghettis "because they should be no more than 3cm
>> long". I think that we are typically dealing with something of that nature.
>> It might be well intentioned but it is an issue.
>> Le mer. 29 juin 2022 à 08:34, David Haberthür <email at davidhaberthuer.ch>
>> a écrit :
>>> Ciao a tutti
>>> > On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB <tanrub at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Altering the data and regressing from the truth with automated tools
>>> because of personal opinions of what the data should be or not be is not.
>>> I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression,
>>> but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that
>>> simplified your/the forest outlines.
>>> As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the
>>> relevant changeset, too.
>>> Have a great day,
>>> Habi
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk-ch mailing list
>>> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ch mailing list
>> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20220630/277ff4f4/attachment.htm>

More information about the talk-ch mailing list