User talk:Chriscf
„yes it will“
Could you please explain the reasoning behind your edit [1]? If an application does not know about the relation's meaning, it will simply ignore it, find an untagged way and ignore that, too. --Tordanik 09:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve copied your statements here to avoid chaos.
The relation section stated "will not irritate applications". This is incorrect - applications that are unaware of the relation will consider a tagged object to be open, and potentially routing engines will send people down motorways that don't yet exist. Chriscf 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've clarified the statement to include cases where the objects are tagged, since if you leave objects untagged, people will invariably tag them. Chriscf 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The whole point of life cycle relations is that objects will not be tagged. Every tag that does describe the former/future usage will be in the relation and thus be ignored if the relation is unknown to the application. --Tordanik 11:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit war about smoothness
Please try to find an agreement on how to find a solution on this edit war. Use the mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org where I raised a thread about your conflict which happens since 7 days now (title is "Edit war on the wiki "map features"". -- Pieren 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I will not enter into any further discussion on this point. Chriscf 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not pro or against smoothness but against edit war in the Map Features page. I try to involve more people in the discussion by moving the subject into the mailing list which is more visible. If you keep this attitude of "I will not discuss", you take the risk to be banned by the community. Here you have a chance to convince other people to re-open a vote or find another compromise. -- Pieren 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I can understand if you're tired of discussing this with people on the wiki. You're not the only one getting frustrated with over-zealous wiki voting on tags. But please talk it through with people somehow. Reply to the mailing list discussion instead. -- Harry Wood 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not pro or against smoothness but against edit war in the Map Features page. I try to involve more people in the discussion by moving the subject into the mailing list which is more visible. If you keep this attitude of "I will not discuss", you take the risk to be banned by the community. Here you have a chance to convince other people to re-open a vote or find another compromise. -- Pieren 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you disable smoothness the 5th Dec at 9:21 ? smoothness is hidden in Map Features since the 4th Dec 22:45 until a new consensus is reach. It is what you wanted. But I cannot accept that you hide the template itself. Please keep this page visible as it can be used for the discussions. Your main complain was "do not show this on map features". Now stop these "undo". -- Pieren 12:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Abrasive comments and style
Chriscf, I have read a number of comments you wrote on this Wiki and I find that while you seem to be ok with writing technical stuff, your style quickly becomes impolite and abrasive when dealing with other individuals. If your world view is that everyone except yourself is an idiot that deserves nothing but contempt, then maybe you could simply stick to writing technical stuff and not address other human beings personally as this will only cause unrest in the project. I know that there are idiots out there but the Wiki talk pages are not the place to tell them so. --Frederik Ramm 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Reverting does not help
Reverting is not a solution to solve problems! Since your first post on 2008-09-01 you added quit some good text to the wiki, but you always do it as a dictator. Every time someone changes something you don't like you just revert the changes without any backing from the community and you already started two editwars in your short OSM-time. IMHO we call such behavior trolling! You did more reverts than any other user on OSM. Some moot examples [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]! There are many more, just have a look at Special:Contributions for Chriscf --Phobie 06:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Editing Help
Hi, As i too have lots of ideas,.. and i'm learning, as I go. Hopefully the smoothness tag is getting better. Verifiability - I would sugest using Wikipedia for definitions of words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability - is an official wikipedia policy. .. worth mentioning. Sadly I can't figure out how to work the IRC chat :(
Smoothness - good
It's OK to suggest that the page should be removed... however, the appropriate method is to place a note on my use talk page, and say "I think this page should be deleted because...." Would really help me out. Simply labeling the page without telling me, leaves me to only assume as to the reason why. And so, i'd rather not assume anything. As i noted on the talk page, i'm happy to remove it. But i will follow the regular wiki approach. Complaining about me doing something wrong doesn't help. Advising on how i can approve does :)
--acrosscanadatrails 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
UK traditional counties
Traditional county data is available in OSGB or lat/lon format for England. Scotland and Wales are still being worked on. Owain 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)