To explain a bit better what is covered by grant and is not strictly related to StreetComplete like pull requests.

Issues on other repositories reported as part of grant activities:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/311 https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2288 https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2287 https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2285

all other issues on repositories other than StreetComplete were not created as part of a grant, but as a part of usual OSM activity.

Tagging discussions, proposals done as part of the grant:

• maxweight related discussions on talk-us, slack-us, slack-ca, tagging, OSM Wiki after 18 June 2019
• maxweight related edits to OSM Wiki after 18 June 2019

all other tagging discussions, proposals were not done as part of a grant, but as a part of usual OSM activity.

A maintainer of the @openstreetmap organization has blocked you because of this content. For more information please see the community guidelines.

That is vicious behaviour.

Given that this content has

Sorry Tom, that is my sense of humour. Sometimes I cannot help myself and behave as the utter prat that everyone else knows me to be.

What confirms it to be deliberate wasting time of others (AKA trolling). Your block was an example of well done and appropriate moderation.

I am going to burn my boats by showing what they are like.

I would say that you are showing who you really are.

@second paragraph from bottom

Can you stop insulting people? This is really unwelcomed.

I now opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6552 with idea that may be a good way to improve situation a bit (or not and maybe it is not worth implementing).

It should be possible, for example, to intuitively mark a road as closed when road works pop up

You tried to change it using in-browser editor, right?

It can be done by selecting road that is now closed, clicking on its icon in editing menu (on hover you get “change feature” hint and switching to “Road closed”).

I wonder how it may be improved, but it depends on what went wrong.

For start - is walk-through in iD explaining now that one may change feature type in this way?

Can you describe what you tried to do and what went wrong?

I wish you a good luck with your project!

Adding two points, linking them in a group and adding those two points to related routes doesn’t sound unfathomably hard. If it’s too hard, maybe entering PT data into OSM isn’t for this person ?

This is completely unreasonable because standard highway=bus_stop is much simpler. Ptv2 made it significantly more complicated without a good reason.

How is this different from Pascal Neis’s Overview of OpenStreetMap Contributors aka Who’s around me?

See

Or you can find local mappers through the Neis ‘Who’s around me?’ tool, but I find that it turns up a lot of stale mappers (who are not active anymore.)

apparently it filters out inactive mappers.

@PeanutButterRemedy

“A: At this point in time, I’m keeping the detection methodology secret to prevent them from further gaming the system without addressing the root problems.” - have you shared your methods with DWG? This way in future others will not need to write code of a detector from scratch.

@PeanutButterRemedy Thanks you for doing this! Yes, newbies can make mistakes. But someone hired to make edits should not be allowed to leave such mess for cleanup.

Such broken edits are not helpful at all.

(a list of edits that 90% of all mappers create at one time or another)

Certainly some of my edits were worse. Much, much worse. But overall effect was positive. Creating hundreds of throwaway accounts is not something that allows you to make hundreds edits and claim for each “that is my first edit, I may make some mistakes”.

Sorry I am still really struggling to see how these are “bad” edit and not an improvement to OSM.

The problem is that someone is making hundreds of such edits. OSM mappers are not obligated to fix bad data, it is perfectly fine to delete SEO spam or low quality import data that makes real mapping harder.

VPN IP addresses (it is not possible to ‘spoof’ an IP address)

Using VPN address (or Tor) are common methods of spoofing IP address to avoid IP bans.

“why are we objecting a few extra relations with the new keys”

1) I see no reason why it would end any differently than say natural=tree that was initially for major and important trees. I worry that soon we will start to have “border claim according to $UNIMPORTANT_POLITICIAN” relations littering database and making harder to edit.

2) This specific tagging scheme forces all data consumers using border data to start using disputed!=yes to exclude India’s/China’s desires from their data/map.

I extremely strongly oppose mapping borders that exists solely in form of claims with boundary=administrative, disputed=yes (for example claims by Pakistan and India in Kashmir).

I dislike idea mapping claims made by countries - I worry about subjectivity here. How serious claim needs be to map it? What about unclear ones? How we check whatever it is serious?

I never proposed such a thing. Please do not misrepresent my statement for the purposes of presenting your own argument.

I am not claiming that is your opinion, I am just asking whatever this demand should be also followed in your opinion.

Personally I think that neither one should be considered as a reason for changing anything in OSM - while governments may fine/imprison/kill people for using data not accepted by them I see no reason to change things in OSM based on that.

It should be fairly easy to produce amended OSM dataset for use by people who decided to use India-approved border version, but it does not mean that it must be stored in OSM database.

Ops. Markdown happened. Fixed version below:

“let others map what they want, that’s freedom” - sorry but that is not going to happen. People wanted to map their personal opinion (“I hate person X”), personal details, private proposal of road networks, fictional cities in polar regions, no longer existing borders, guessed locations of ancient roads, micronations[1], no longer existing railways[2], cut down trees[3], capacity of private garages, details of private toilets etc etc.

[1] mapping them as countries, or mapping ones with no activity beyond website and forum

[2] including cases where absolutely no traces were left - as that place is now an open pit mine

[3] without remaining tree stumps or roots

Maybe mapping desires/opinions of countries is a good idea, but that is not a good argument for it.

“and you don’t break other’s people stuff”

I am not fundamentally opposed to mapping China/India/Pakistan desires and opinions, though I am dubious is it something that has place in OSM dataset.

But mapping such desires with “boundary=administrative” is unacceptable for me as it breaks existing data consumers.

If someone wants to map such political desires - fine, but please do not use “boundary=administrative” tag for it.

“let others map what they want, that’s freedom” - sorry but that is not going to happen. People wanted to map their personal opinion (“I hate person X”), personal details, private proposal of road networks, fictional cities in polar regions, no longer existing borders, guessed locations of ancient roads, micronations, no longer existing railways, cut down trees, capacity of private garages, details of private toilets etc etc.

• mapping them as countries, or mapping ones with no activity beyond website and forum ** including cases where absolutely no traces were left - as that place is now an open pit mine *** without ramaining tree stumps or roots

Maybe mapping desires/opinions of countries is a good idea, but that is not a good argument for it.

Would we be comfortable with losing 1.4 billion potential mappers/users? What if Russia passed a similar bill with respect to boundaries in Crimea?

Are you proposing to follow also censorship requirements in China, forbidding to accurately map its territory?

I see no good reason for following censorship requests for such cases.

I want to repeat that mapping political claims, for example in Kashmir rather than actually existing border is ridiculous and I strongly oppose it.

Especially if it would be done in way breaking existing administrative boundaries.

BTW, is there finally update from OSMF why they decided override data working group decision?

One more note: I would keep “vandalism” for intentionally malicious edits. People make mistakes, and I would not use “vandalism” term if there is a chance that edit was well intended.