User talk:Stoecker
On dealing with disputes
The wiki documents what's known as consensus for a feature. Ideally it is only changed after a consensus is established by voting, but the past has shown that this can be impractical - a lot of proposals never got the attention for the concept of proposals to truely 'work' and a lot of 'de facto' standards were established by deriving them from the data, without a vote, possibly contradicting existing proposals in the wiki.
This also allows documentation to enter the wiki that is incomplete or misleading (even plain wrong), possibly for years, if noone speaks up or if noone reads up on it to check (and vow mistakes found). Evolution is a slow process, so we cannot claim a certain state of a page to be complete or perfect. This is why noone should 'lock' or 'believe in' a page's state blindly. It leads to bigotry if reasonable change and questioning is disallowed. Locking in on a specific state without reasoning is what you're currently trying to do, you are conservative about it. People believed earth to be flat for thousands of years and burned the non-believers with false claims. For some cultures this is still claimed to be true, but not for the one we live in, but maybe we ought to rethink this assertion as well?
Whatever has been done in the past, the work and concerns of individuals always deserved attention and great respect (because noone likes to be ignored as 'childlike'). This is one reason why our project has initially been successful, because it is not autocratic and because people actually listen to each other and got the attention and respect they deserved, no matter how small or insignificant their issues seemed to be. Ignorance breaks this tradition. It has always been one person to start a dispute, sometimes this is you, sometimes another one. That's life. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- .. and that observation of yours about me being the only one disputing, is not a good one either. For one part, you've stated that my arguments are not new, implying that you've dealt with lots of other people dissenting that page's content before. For another part, even in the recent past, consulting this wiki alone (i.e. not additionally crawling the forum), you can find other persons with the same concern (e.g. User:Waeltken) and other users being uncertain (e.g. User:Gppes) by simply consulting DE_talk:Relation:multipolygon. So once again, you should not make this a personal issue between you and me, but rather consider the arguments of the group dissenting instead of shutting up individuals one by one over time. ––Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are modifying a page that is the main documentation of the current structure. And you are thus trying to impose on user searching documentation, that this feature is disputed. That's clearly not the case. You can write on mailinglists, write proposals, and whatever and when you can convince others that this is disputable, then set the flag. But what you do now is to suggest something which is clearly not the case. --Stoecker (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I do not find nor need to convince others that this is an disputed feature, as I have found this dispute by having read this wiki and other sources. I then checked, if what I've read is justified and it is. It's a clear case that there is a dispute on. Not because I say so, but because I belong to a group saying so. You, on the other hand, speak as if this is a personal thing of mine, ridiculing the objective to discuss it reasonably. This observation is false and it's very easy to see that this is false. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I am not shutting you up by simply reverting your edits, but by reasoning about the arguments you gave on the subject. Also, I've not removed touching inner rings from the documentation but inserted a valid note that there is some fuzz about it and you will have to accept that, unless you're an autocrat. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Revert
Hi, could you explain why you reverted [1]? In the wiki text {{tag|cycleway|=opposite||opposite}} , the expression |= makes no sense, nor to my knowledge is a valid wiki markup. What are you trying to show with it? --Yurik (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because you changed the user visible text from "cycleway=opposite" to "cycleway:opposite=opposite". That's wrong. Whatever link or style changes you do, they should not invalidate the text. --Stoecker (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Stoecker: what, in your opinion, should the link be -- should it simply point to the Tag:cycleway=opposite (translated if the page is available), or should it point somewhere else? There is clearly a mistake in the wiki markup, and I thought the desired view should be "cycleway:opposite=opposite" (in retrospect I agree that's silly). --Yurik (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
landuse auf Nodes
Hallo, ich habe den Edit zu landuse auf nodes erstmal revertiert, prinzipiell bin ich aber einverstanden dass es nicht logisch ist. Mehr im Kommentar zu meinem revert. Gruß, —-Dieterdreist (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- The change to introduce landuse on nodes was added without any reference by a single user with no discussion and without any indication in the page itself. It is an error and was never supported. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanduse&type=revision&diff=1557401&oldid=1425367 That there are existing nodes which use the wrong tagging is no objective against correcting the wiki, as they wiki should describe what should be used. Any landuse on a node is something like "here should be something" similar to a fixme node. That can be done, but it should in no way be described as a proper way to act. Taginfo is there to show the bad usages which should be fixed, not the wiki. --Stoecker (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- There is onNode=yes in the Key:landuse pages because it is allowed on some of the landuse values, see Values section. The Wiki is here to document current mapping state, not how it should be mapped, see Wiki: "the documentation present here is informative rather than prescriptive and authoritative". maro21 22:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you look at the tags then you can see, that the majority of entries is automated imports, e.g. of 31284 landuse=reservoir 28787 still have gnis:feature_id. Landuse tags on nodes are bugs and should not be documented! --Stoecker (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I believe there is generally agreement that the wiki should describe what is done and not what should be done, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. —Dieterdreist (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. And that's the reason why automated imports of wrong tags should not be documented, because that is not 'How it is done'. This whole page does arbitrary selections when nodes can be used or not with the symbols only, but nowhere is a description how that should work. There is no indication this was ever used outside broken imports. Instead of fixing a clear error you defend the broken stuff. That's the reason why I don't participate in wiki typically and why JOSM often ignores it. Stoecker (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)