Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
==== Shernott:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). ==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Hello !
Hi Stéphane!
So what is this about "adding place for roads"? In OSM a road is usually represented as a line, and if there is a forest on one side of the road and a meadow on the other, why not having the road as the border between two areas? If you want the road to receive a second dimension. you can always give it a width tag.
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
Or what are you going to do with all the white space that you dug up now? Are you going to draw the left and the right sides of the roads? And do you want to continue to do this also inside the Bois du Jorat? I mean why would you stop at the borders of areas, when the tracks inside the forest "need place" too? And while you are at it, do you want to continue with the streets and residential areas in and around Lausanne?
The Bois du Jorat was a mess of duplicate and unconnected ways, and you didn't seem to mind about that. Why do you feel the urge to "correct" me, now that I started to complete and clean it up a bit?
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
Or in other words, would you mind reverting your change set (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557) before other people start to build upon it and make it more difficult to revert it? Anyway, right now it is far from complete and finished, it breaks relations and duplicates roads. From say before I revert changset 9162875...
Sincerely Stéphane Brunner
Regards, Thorsten
==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Oh, by the way, no problem with writing to me in French, I understand it quite well. I'm also used to speaking it, but when it comes to writing something that I don't have to be ashamed of, it takes me quite a long time, so I'd prefer to write to you in English. ==== Shernott:
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
* You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
* The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
* You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
Sincerely yours Stéphane Brunner
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Just for your information: I took the liberty to remove my GPX tracks from the Lausanne area.
I'm finished here, you can have it your way. ==== Shernott:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
lol ...
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-30 20:01:06 UTC Shernott wrote:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais. On doit donc vraiment pas ce comprendre...
Comme vois aviez raison que l'immense zone résidentiel de Lausanne et environ ne corresponds pas à la réalité j'ai commencer au la corriger également.
Et pour finir voici ce que je considère comme une référence du but ultime duquel ont est encore bien loin : http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-31 19:45:27 UTC Shernott wrote:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais.
If you are on the ground and MAPPING in an area, then you should MAP there any way it suits you. But if you feel the urge to "CORRECT" and "IMPROVE" what other people are MAPPING while they are still active on the ground in that area, that's an entirely different story.
And on top of that, if you fail to notice that there were GPX traces around the lakes I mapped in a quarry and you replace them with some other lakes that only exit on old satellite pictures, then I call that "fucking things up", even if you spent a considerable effort to follow contours of lakes that don't exist anymore in that form.
I am fed up with your idea of "collaboration" and I suggest that you send somebody else with a GPS and a mountainbike up into the Bois de Jorat, since I won't touch it anymore.
End of this discussion.
Have a nice weekend! Thorsten
==== Genscher:
Stop harassing Shernott and start correcting your own things first.
You're not welcome in the comunity.
Salut
Que les zones suivent la rue sans éspace intermédiaire est une "question de goût". "Corriger" sans amélioration est impoli. (Joindre ou séparer les zones sans information plus détaille est un changement stylistique, pas une amélioration en soi.)
En cas de Bois de Jorat, ca avait disparu du Mapnik, j'ai vu. C'est lié à cette altercation, peut-ètre? Je trouve que là les relations sont très compliquées, alors je comprends si on veut les simplifier.
Peut-être nous lister les changesets et endroits disputé nous aidera?
Salutations Stephan
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 02:58:44PM +0200, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
==== Shernott:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). ==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Hello !
Hi Stéphane!
So what is this about "adding place for roads"? In OSM a road is usually represented as a line, and if there is a forest on one side of the road and a meadow on the other, why not having the road as the border between two areas? If you want the road to receive a second dimension. you can always give it a width tag.
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
Or what are you going to do with all the white space that you dug up now? Are you going to draw the left and the right sides of the roads? And do you want to continue to do this also inside the Bois du Jorat? I mean why would you stop at the borders of areas, when the tracks inside the forest "need place" too? And while you are at it, do you want to continue with the streets and residential areas in and around Lausanne?
The Bois du Jorat was a mess of duplicate and unconnected ways, and you didn't seem to mind about that. Why do you feel the urge to "correct" me, now that I started to complete and clean it up a bit?
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
Or in other words, would you mind reverting your change set (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557) before other people start to build upon it and make it more difficult to revert it? Anyway, right now it is far from complete and finished, it breaks relations and duplicates roads.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
Sincerely Stéphane Brunner
Regards, Thorsten
==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Oh, by the way, no problem with writing to me in French, I understand it quite well. I'm also used to speaking it, but when it comes to writing something that I don't have to be ashamed of, it takes me quite a long time, so I'd prefer to write to you in English. ==== Shernott:
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
- You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the
Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
- The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide.
There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
- You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its
offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
Sincerely yours Stéphane Brunner
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Just for your information: I took the liberty to remove my GPX tracks from the Lausanne area.
I'm finished here, you can have it your way.
Shernott:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten
Moi:
Hello,
lol ...
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-30 20:01:06 UTC Shernott wrote:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten
Moi:
Hello,
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais. On doit donc vraiment pas ce comprendre...
Comme vois aviez raison que l'immense zone résidentiel de Lausanne et environ ne corresponds pas à la réalité j'ai commencer au la corriger également.
Et pour finir voici ce que je considère comme une référence du but ultime duquel ont est encore bien loin : http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-31 19:45:27 UTC Shernott wrote:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais.
If you are on the ground and MAPPING in an area, then you should MAP there any way it suits you. But if you feel the urge to "CORRECT" and "IMPROVE" what other people are MAPPING while they are still active on the ground in that area, that's an entirely different story.
And on top of that, if you fail to notice that there were GPX traces around the lakes I mapped in a quarry and you replace them with some other lakes that only exit on old satellite pictures, then I call that "fucking things up", even if you spent a considerable effort to follow contours of lakes that don't exist anymore in that form.
I am fed up with your idea of "collaboration" and I suggest that you send somebody else with a GPS and a mountainbike up into the Bois de Jorat, since I won't touch it anymore.
End of this discussion.
Have a nice weekend! Thorsten
==== Genscher:
Stop harassing Shernott and start correcting your own things first.
You're not welcome in the comunity.
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Stephan Balmer sb@cis.ch wrote:
Salut
Que les zones suivent la rue sans éspace intermédiaire est une "question de goût". "Corriger" sans amélioration est impoli. (Joindre ou séparer les zones sans information plus détaille est un changement stylistique, pas une amélioration en soi.)
Dans le cas par exemple d'une place quand on supprime totalement la forme d'une place je ne trouve pas que c'est juste une question de goût c'est une perte d'informations.
En cas de Bois de Jorat, ca avait disparu du Mapnik, j'ai vu. C'est lié à cette altercation, peut-ètre?
Effectivement ...
Je trouve que là les relations sont très compliquées, alors je comprends si on veut les simplifier.
Oui mais je ne pense pas que de rajouter un segment a chaque route cela simplifie, pour moi cela complique plutôt ...
Peut-être nous lister les changesets et endroits disputé nous aidera?
Pour un exemple plus simple qu'est la place de la Ripone (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/391928/history): Mon changeset initial http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4936589 Modification de Shernott http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9065948
Comme on n'est ni l'un ni l'autre très atomique ce n'est pas forcement évident..
CU Stéphane
Salutations Stephan
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 02:58:44PM +0200, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
==== Shernott:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). ==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Hello !
Hi Stéphane!
So what is this about "adding place for roads"? In OSM a road is usually represented as a line, and if there is a forest on one side of the road and a meadow on the other, why not having the road as the border between two areas? If you want the road to receive a second dimension. you can always give it a width tag.
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
Or what are you going to do with all the white space that you dug up now? Are you going to draw the left and the right sides of the roads? And do you want to continue to do this also inside the Bois du Jorat? I mean why would you stop at the borders of areas, when the tracks inside the forest "need place" too? And while you are at it, do you want to continue with the streets and residential areas in and around Lausanne?
The Bois du Jorat was a mess of duplicate and unconnected ways, and you didn't seem to mind about that. Why do you feel the urge to "correct" me, now that I started to complete and clean it up a bit?
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
Or in other words, would you mind reverting your change set (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557) before other people start to build upon it and make it more difficult to revert it? Anyway, right now it is far from complete and finished, it breaks relations and duplicates roads.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
Sincerely Stéphane Brunner
Regards, Thorsten
==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Oh, by the way, no problem with writing to me in French, I understand it quite well. I'm also used to speaking it, but when it comes to writing something that I don't have to be ashamed of, it takes me quite a long time, so I'd prefer to write to you in English. ==== Shernott:
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
- You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the
Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
- The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide.
There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
- You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its
offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
Sincerely yours Stéphane Brunner
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Just for your information: I took the liberty to remove my GPX tracks from the Lausanne area.
I'm finished here, you can have it your way.
Shernott:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten
Moi:
Hello,
lol ...
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-30 20:01:06 UTC Shernott wrote:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten
Moi:
Hello,
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais. On doit donc vraiment pas ce comprendre...
Comme vois aviez raison que l'immense zone résidentiel de Lausanne et environ ne corresponds pas à la réalité j'ai commencer au la corriger également.
Et pour finir voici ce que je considère comme une référence du but ultime duquel ont est encore bien loin : http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-31 19:45:27 UTC Shernott wrote:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais.
If you are on the ground and MAPPING in an area, then you should MAP there any way it suits you. But if you feel the urge to "CORRECT" and "IMPROVE" what other people are MAPPING while they are still active on the ground in that area, that's an entirely different story.
And on top of that, if you fail to notice that there were GPX traces around the lakes I mapped in a quarry and you replace them with some other lakes that only exit on old satellite pictures, then I call that "fucking things up", even if you spent a considerable effort to follow contours of lakes that don't exist anymore in that form.
I am fed up with your idea of "collaboration" and I suggest that you send somebody else with a GPS and a mountainbike up into the Bois de Jorat, since I won't touch it anymore.
End of this discussion.
Have a nice weekend! Thorsten
==== Genscher:
Stop harassing Shernott and start correcting your own things first.
You're not welcome in the comunity.
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Que les zones suivent la rue sans éspace intermédiaire est une "question de goût". "Corriger" sans amélioration est impoli. (Joindre ou séparer les zones sans information plus détaille est un changement stylistique, pas une amélioration en soi.)
Dans le cas par exemple d'une place quand on supprime totalement la forme d'une place je ne trouve pas que c'est juste une question de goût c'est une perte d'informations.
Normalement, une place s'étend jusq'au rue. La forme d'un place est définit par les routes et zones autour de la place en la majorité des cas. Alors moi, je vais la connecter aux rues autour. Tois, tu la connecteras pas, je crois. Il n'y a pas un qui est plus "correcte". Si tu veux le discuter, on peut continuer où les autres ont fini: sans accord. Entre-temps on le fait comme on veut, et on va pas changer le travail des autres sans avoir information plus détaillée à ajouter.
En cas de Bois de Jorat, ca avait disparu du Mapnik, j'ai vu. C'est lié à cette altercation, peut-ètre?
Effectivement ...
Je trouve que là les relations sont très compliquées, alors je comprends si on veut les simplifier.
Oui mais je ne pense pas que de rajouter un segment a chaque route cela simplifie, pour moi cela complique plutôt ...
Je ne sais pas ce que c'est passé. Et les changements sont trop compliqués a suivre sans explanation.
Peut-être nous lister les changesets et endroits disputé nous aidera?
Pour un exemple plus simple qu'est la place de la Ripone (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/391928/history): Mon changeset initial http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4936589 Modification de Shernott http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9065948
Comme on n'est ni l'un ni l'autre très atomique ce n'est pas forcement évident..
Ici, j'ai l'impression que c'est Shernott qui avait changé (connecté) sans nécessité, alors je comprends ton désaccord. Cependant tu as fait pareil par déconnecter les zones en Bois de Jorat, Shernott a écrit. À mon avis, on ne peut justifier ni l'un, ni l'autre.
Pour trouver un accord, il faut accepter que c'est impoli et que vous n'allez plus mêler sans amélioration.
Hello,
2011/9/6 Stephan Balmer sb@cis.ch:
Que les zones suivent la rue sans éspace intermédiaire est une "question de goût". "Corriger" sans amélioration est impoli. (Joindre ou séparer les zones sans information plus détaille est un changement stylistique, pas une amélioration en soi.)
Dans le cas par exemple d'une place quand on supprime totalement la forme d'une place je ne trouve pas que c'est juste une question de goût c'est une perte d'informations.
Normalement, une place s'étend jusq'au rue. La forme d'un place est définit par les routes et zones autour de la place en la majorité des cas. Alors moi, je vais la connecter aux rues autour. Tois, tu la connecteras pas, je crois. Il n'y a pas un qui est plus "correcte". Si tu veux le discuter, on peut continuer où les autres ont fini: sans accord. Entre-temps on le fait comme on veut, et on va pas changer le travail des autres sans avoir information plus détaillée à ajouter.
Ouai, sauf que dans OSM on a pas les rue en tant que surface, du coup cela veux dire que, surtout dans les cas ou l'on fais du micro mapping, la place va jusqu’au milieux de la rue. Je sais que je joue un peut sur le mot mais ou final je ne voie pas comment on peut dire que dans le deux exemple que j'ai attaché on ne puisse dire qu'il contiennent autant d'information, car le ex1.osm contiens clairement plus d'informations.
En cas de Bois de Jorat, ca avait disparu du Mapnik, j'ai vu. C'est lié à cette altercation, peut-ètre?
Effectivement ...
Je trouve que là les relations sont très compliquées, alors je comprends si on veut les simplifier.
Oui mais je ne pense pas que de rajouter un segment a chaque route cela simplifie, pour moi cela complique plutôt ...
Je ne sais pas ce que c'est passé. Et les changements sont trop compliqués a suivre sans explanation.
Peut-être nous lister les changesets et endroits disputé nous aidera?
Pour un exemple plus simple qu'est la place de la Ripone (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/391928/history): Mon changeset initial http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4936589 Modification de Shernott http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9065948
Comme on n'est ni l'un ni l'autre très atomique ce n'est pas forcement évident..
Ici, j'ai l'impression que c'est Shernott qui avait changé (connecté) sans nécessité, alors je comprends ton désaccord. Cependant tu as fait pareil par déconnecter les zones en Bois de Jorat, Shernott a écrit. À mon avis, on ne peut justifier ni l'un, ni l'autre.
Pour trouver un accord, il faut accepter que c'est impoli et que vous n'allez plus mêler sans amélioration.
Pour les bois de Joras c'est plus ou moins la même chose en moins marqué, Ce n'est pas par contre le cas de chaque surfaces. mais j'accepte parfaitement le fait que, comme mis dans mon premier courriel, j'aie également fais plusieurs erreur, mais je problème que je rencontre est plus sur l’impossibilité de trouver un compromis (ce que j'ai déjà fais avec de nombreux contributeurs) qu'une ou l'autre des modifications au milieux d'un change set.
Enfin bref j'espère que cela va ce calmé ;-)
CU et bon mapping ;-) Stéph
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-
Stephan Balmer -
Stéphane Brunner