[talk-ch] Ask for mediation

Stéphane Brunner courriel at stephane-brunner.ch
Sat Sep 3 14:58:44 CEST 2011


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_zoom=9&map_visibility_Plan%20cadastral=true&map_opacity_Plan%20cadastral=1&map_visibility_Cartes%20et%20plans%20topographiques%20gris=false&map_opacity_Cartes%20et%20plans%20topographiques%20gris=1&map_visibility_Orthophoto%202008%20gris=false&map_opacity_Orthophoto%202008%20gris=1&map_visibility_Pas%20de%20fond=false&map_opacity_Pas%20de%20fond=1&map_visibility__shared_wms_=true&map_opacity__shared_wms_=1&map_visibility_Cosmetic=true&map_opacity_Cosmetic=1&map_layers__shared_wms_=at14_zones_communales

====
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_zoom=9&map_visibility_Plan%20cadastral=true&map_opacity_Plan%20cadastral=1&map_visibility_Cartes%20et%20plans%20topographiques%20gris=false&map_opacity_Cartes%20et%20plans%20topographiques%20gris=1&map_visibility_Orthophoto%202008%20gris=false&map_opacity_Orthophoto%202008%20gris=1&map_visibility_Pas%20de%20fond=false&map_opacity_Pas%20de%20fond=1&map_visibility__shared_wms_=true&map_opacity__shared_wms_=1&map_visibility_Cosmetic=true&map_opacity_Cosmetic=1&map_layers__shared_wms_=at14_zones_communales

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
--



More information about the talk-ch mailing list