User talk:Riiga

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New vote explanation

Thanks for a vote! As it turns out that bundling all vote changes in one was a clear mistake, I stopped the ongoing vote after you already participated. If you want you can participate in a new vote that was started at Proposed features/change vote counting rules - remove no show paradox. It includes only one of proposed changes. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Splitting roundabouts

I see you have changed the roundabout page, but your edit has changed the page like it was okay to split roundabouts (without emphasizing all the possible problems with that and about how to resolve them if a split is necessary, and how to see when it is not). I do not see any community agreement on that, neither in the talk page nor elsewhere, so please either start a discussion or a vote, or clearly indicate that this is your personal opinion. The timing was particularly unlucky since people started to complain about ID editor involuntarily splitting roundabouts and ruining relations and it may have seemed like if someone have changed the wiki (and its meaning to the opposite) just to stop the people complaining. --grin 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is common practice that splitting roundabouts is okay like I wrote. The incorrect text on the wiki saying *not* to do it was added only a year ago or so. --Riiga (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please link the community decision of the change (or, as I said, start a discussion/voting, if you believe "everyone agrees with you") before you revert it again, or you will be reported to the DWG for abusive behaviour. I have explicitly notified you about the problem, you have not linked any proof for your statement, and you have reverted my edit without any relevant discussion. Do not revert again until you have backed up your changing statement with proof. Thank you! -- grin 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
See, I can also make random words bold to sound threatening. Why don't you link to community consensus that splitting roundabouts is not okay? And the wiki page doesn't count in this case, it was added only in December 2020, which was my main point: The addition of the text was not by community consensus, and my change describes common practice (I don't want to use argument by authority, but I've been mapping since 2008 and especially roads, so I know a fair amount about this subject). Some advice for next time: try asking yourself if threatening people at the first sign of disagreement is in the spirit of OSM. --Riiga (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
A discussion has been started. --Riiga (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! --grin 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine to split roundabouts, it's often require for placing route relations that run through them. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Do not mix up splitting them when required compared to splitting them for fun. The problem was especially raised when it is was not required, exacerbated by the fact that route relations are also completely messed up. (There may be a whole section about splitting, and what to watch for, but without that it is extremely harmful in general, especially when using ID editor, especially when ID editor splits up without notifying the editor.) The page currently says when to split and what and how; the specific paragraph is talking about connecting ways, which must be be used as an excuse to split. That's the problem. --grin 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
For completeness re "reported to the DWG" above - the Data Working Group isn't responsible for the OSM wiki (we have wiki admins for that), but for data in the OSM database itself. We typically don't get involved with disputes that are only or mainly in the wiki. Andy, from the DWG. SomeoneElse (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


thanks for uploads with proper mapping of link roads! Can you add location data and info which aerial imagery was used there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)