[talk-ch] Ask for mediation

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Sun Sep 4 21:10:34 CEST 2011


There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on 
talk-de, naturally
without a conclusion.

Essentially both ways of mapping  are "right", the one is more the 
classical cartographers
generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the 
chaotic OSM way.

I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to 
less problems with
edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing 
things.

But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.

Simon


PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will 
go away :-)

Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
> 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
>




More information about the talk-ch mailing list