Changeset: 79263054
Cleaning up some sloppy user:Adamant1 landuse polygons
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (15628 en) |
---|---|
source | SCCGIS v7 Zoning.shp |
Discussion
-
Comment from Adamant1
SteveA, what about the polygons where "sloppy" except that you don't like my edits? Also, it doesn't help when you do 133 pages of changes in one go, including deleting a bunch of stuff. Especially by using the SCCGIS zoning data. Which you've been told before already can't be used to revert people's work you don't like.
Plus,
1. It's an undisclosed mass edit
2. The purpose of imports isn't to revert people you have a personal problem with.
3. Your suppose to contact the user about their problematic edits before reverting them if you do. Which you didn't you do in this case.
You already know all this and I shouldn't have to remind you about those things yet again.
Either explain exactly what the problem with my edits was in a clear none attacking manor and compromise with me on a solution, revert yourself and put it how I had it then leave me alone, or I'm going to report you. Those are your three options. Because I'm still going to edit the area and I'm not dealing with this kind of thing from you repeatedly for doing it.
-
Comment from stevea
I believe my changeset comments in changeset/79261829 answer your concerns here. If not, please let me know here.
-
Comment from woodpeck
Data Working Group here. You have bother been asked in the past to refrain from fiddling with data contributed by the other. @Adamant1, there is lots of rubbish data all over California that you could fix; could you be persuaded to concentrate your efforts in areas not originally worked by stevea? @stevea, it is an unnecessary slight to brandish someone "sloppy" in a changeset comment. Please don't. To be frank, data like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281209814 with the tags "OBJECTID", "Zoning", "SHAPE_STAr" and "SHAPE_STLe" should never have been imported that way in the first place; this would never pass muster on today's import guidelines. I would prefer if Adamant1 had not edited this, but editing it and not getting rid of the rubbish tags is doubly bad. But it is what it is! @Both: We have asked you repeatedly to keep the peace and if you don't we will have no choice but give you both a cool-off account block so that you can enjoy the beautiful non-OSM life out there for a while.
-
Comment from stevea
Thank you for taking the time to arbitrate, DWG. The previous (and only) time both of us were blocked, I was admonished for not specifically saying who was responsible for a poor edit (as you said "it was obvious from the comments who that was") yet here I am told that calling out a specific person is a bad idea, so I am a bit confused.
I did apologize to Adam in changeset/79261829 for my poor choice of word ("sloppy") as I meant it as "definition 1" (untidy) but I can see that is inflammatory as it also could have connoted "definition 2" (little care or attention). I wished that Adam had paid a bit more attention to the alignment of existing polygons (and hope he does in future), is all.
DWG, btw, noting the acrimony by many about "foreign tags" in (especially CPAD, but also SCCGIS data), I have recently written wiki "Using CPAD data" to mitigate the propensity of such tags finding their way into OSM. I agree with you that some of these tags do not belong in our data and have for some time said "where objectionable, these may be deleted."
I do give good reasons why (in that wiki) the original datum of OBJECTID (to denote "which polygon?") and the datum ACRES (going forward, cpad:acres) is useful as a sort of checksum against newer versions. (The same checksum reasoning applies to SHAPE* tags from SCCGIS data, but I have yet to get to writing that as wiki; I intend to).
Please understand that my intentions here are to do my best to make a wonderful map with the best data (most of it from personal experience, not data from elsewhere) possible. A great deal of that has been to clean up what other people have done, improving it greatly according to the feedback that I have received. Part of those efforts have left some "cruft" in the map and I hope it is clear (from the Using CPAD data wiki I wrote) that I am very much committed to cleaning these up — I have likened this to there being some eraser crumbs on the page and I have just taken a large breath to blow/sweep them away. Our map data DO get better and better, sometimes this takes a fair bit of time (and effort!) and there are some crunchy, unpleasant, messy details as we do. I honestly try to minimize these, as everybody loves sausage, though few like to watch it being made.
-
Comment from Adamant1
Woodpeck, with all due respect where's your comment in changeset 79131363 about how SteveA shouldn't write needless messages to me in discussions I'm involved in? I'm not doing this one sided thing where I should piss off to "my side" of the state, never to map where he's mapped again. While he continues to do whatever he wants where he wants to do it. But yet I'm the one that should restrain myself from making two pixel adjustments to landuse polygons and go somewhere else.
As I've said before anyway, his area is my area. I have family that lives in the Santa Cruz area and I visit there sometimes. Making it so I can't add something like a phone number to a restaurant the next time down there because SteveA added the building isn't a fair or doable solution.
As far as this changeset goes, I actually put a lot of consideration into avoiding SteveA's area (Santa Cruz) before I did it. I thought Watsonville would have been fare enough away to not get encroach on "his territory." Plenty of other people have mapped stuff around there to and once your in Id Editor its impossible to tell who did what. I added some houses in Santa Cruz, but that was it and SteveA made clear he doesn't have an issue with it. But don't treat it like I was just running editing things indiscriminately.
Btw, as I'm sure you know he did the same thing to both me and bdiscoe in 79261829. So, IMO the specifics of his behavior and justification for it still need to be worked out if I where to go somewhere else or not. In his defense he replied civilly there and is at least attempting to explain himself. Even if I disagree with his reasoning. Editing things is not the issue. Arguing is. Although I agree one has a good chance of leading to the next, but that could be said for anyone.
Id like to see is just compromise on this and SteveA follow the rules of reverts better, instead of us being banished from certain areas or blocked. Perhaps we could at least be given a chance. If not fine though. Your right there's other areas, but anyone can edit anywhere and this is an area I go to, lived in, and still have family. So I'm never going to completely not edit there. I'm doing my best to respect SteveA's "turf" in the meantime though. Hopefully SteveA would have respect for that.
-
Comment from Adamant1
Woodpeck Et al. I opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2501 to helpfully address the "messages are to long" issue.
Its natural to run with the amount of rope we are given. I don't put that on SteveA, freebeer, me, or other users who sometimes write long messages. Limiting the character amount is better then repeatedly calling out particular users for doing what the platform allows them to. As it doesn't really solve the problem. It should especially be limited if long messages are always going to be considered arguing as they have been by Woodpeck and others.
-
Comment from freebeer
A. Dama, to go off-topic but to throw in two pence, a character limit on changeset comments seems pointless, as i've not seen the abuse in comments (that can't be anonymous), unlike the osm notes we worked in common in the past where complete junk was posted.
i've hit the recent notes character limit fairly often when going into detail, which can be annoying to me, while a relief to others.
a character limit here won't do anything about going off-topic, deviation, repetition, or ... um ... ah ... ehhh ... hesitation. these are the issues i need to work on, and i can just as well write a short off-topic or unclear message or loaded with insults and attacks without reaching the limit.
in these two verbal volleys i've come across this morning, i've not felt what y'all have written is too long as such, but rather that the other flaws come to the fore. i believe i understand what stevea has been doing although it's expressed a bit unclearly, and without looking at the actual data changes, i do know that Potlatch 1 is very prone to slightly moving a way when selected (probably nodes too) and throws up a warning; this was likely made worse for me by remote-X11 editing. i don't intend it and sometimes may not catch it.
anyway, i'm not back to the recovery point where i can analyse and explain what's happened, if these were wholesale polygon drag-and-drops like i'm interpreting the description. so i probably shouldn't say anything.
anyway a character count lim
-
Comment from Adamant1
Freebeer, opening the issue was more to push the issue to wider audience so if it gets shot down there hopefully it won't come up here again. Although, I mostly agree shorter won't solve most the problems that come up in changeset comments.
As far as the polygon thing, since your better then SteveA at explaining things in a way I jive with perhaps you could explain what the problem with a slightly moved way is in the first place? around here for instance there are a lot of overlapping/crisscrossing areas of different none matching types. Which not only wrong (It's not residential/forest/meadow/grass/etc/etc where they over cross each other), but also make it impossible to map the "stuff" underneath. My original intent was to map buildings in this area and I could have really cared less about the landuse. But its impossible not to "adjust" it slightly in some places where they cross each other to map buildings or fences or whatever. Which is the only reason I screwed with it in the first place (at least that I remember). So what's the alternative to moving the landuse polygons? Just not mapping those things?
My main problem with SteveA is that he is 100% landuse "obsessed" in this area and it comes at the cost of everything else being mapped. A while back he deleted 300 houses I mapped because he didn't like how their offset was compared to landuse's offset. Which is a lot of why nothing else outside of landuse is really mapped around here. That doesn't even speak to the questionable quality of a lot of it. So what's the solution then? Forget mapping buildings where it means moving or modifying the landuse a tiny bit because "hey landuse looks goods, I win awards, and live here so piss off"?
Ways (1-20 of 25)
- 1
- 2
- 761318927, v1
- 761318928, v1
- 761318929, v1
- 761318930, v1
- 761318931, v1
- 761318932, v1
- 761318933, v1
- 761318934, v1
- 761318935, v1
- 225369842, v8
- 280407994, v3
- 281209814, v3
- 281897360, v3
- 674544299, v6
- 761201629, v2
41170924, v441171297, v341171353, v441172466, v4280590408, v4
Relations (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |