Proposed feature: Snowshed
You haven't touched Proposed features/snowshed for a while. I was thinking of getting it further through the proposal process. A was thinking of to send a secondary RFC e-mail the get some attention and later go for voting. Can I coordinate this? --Kslotte 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure Rw 11:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Project of the Week
Hi Richard, I translated the POTW but I must say, that I'm a bit unhappy about the MapQuest focused topic. Of course it might be nice to win the bet and get more publicity.--!i!
- So you want the result; better OSM data at landmarks. Is it bad to have better OSM data at landmarks because Ant mentioned it? Isn't improved OSM data at landmarks a positive result for everybody involved in OSM? Are you objecting to the message or the messenger? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
But on the other hand I feel a bit miserable cause of the commercial touch, --!i!
- But you like the challenge of winning the bet.Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes of course, because I agree that MapQuest makes important improvements to OSM technologies. But I would like more a distributed approach and not one single company getting that much influence. "If you only give gifts to that ones, you are sure to get something back, then what do you do special?" (Klaus Kinsky) --!i! 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
the lacking of a global aspect, --!i!
- We've had this with other projects, see World Cup venues. Yes, global reach projects are better. Map a landmark in your area if you prefer. Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Right but shouldn't it be nicer if the POTW cares about that and creates a offer for everybody? --!i! 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
no concrete instructions,..--!i!
- Many previous PotW have been improved by other OSMers after they were published. Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't proposed/discussed with the community. --!i!
- I don't recall a previous PotW being discussed or approved by the community. This proposal has been on the wiki  for over a month. Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry my fault :( --!i! 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Even if POTW is your child it would be nice, just to avoid the current 'Hi folks, there is some work for you!" effect that might hit Mapquest more than it would be helpful. --!i! 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Every PotW is a call to action for mappers in one way or another. It is supposed to inspire or inform or remind or just get mappers out mapping. Not everybody went out and mapped baseball fields either. Do you hate me because I suggested mapping baseball diamonds? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm all in favour of the POTW concept when it's a call to improve the map as a whole, destinated to the community worldwide and is advertising some entities and ways to map them. I'm against the concept when it is a call to "please map my backyard" or "improve my region or country" (excepted for humaniterian crisis with a real emergency) --[[User:Pieren|Pieren]
- Do you object to the mapping Karachi from aerial imagery project from 09 May 2010? or when it is to help/promote a specific commercial data consumer like MapQuest or similar. --[[User:Pieren|Pieren]
- Yes but nevertheless it's a global call to the community. Therefore we should pay attention on what we request, right? And is a "please help company XYZ cause of ABC to get their areas done!" (exaggerated) a good request in your eyes Richard? --!i! 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is improving landmark data in OSM a benefit only to MapQuest, or to all users / consumers of OSM data? Is this project better if Ant does not get credit for submitting it? Should contributors hide what they contribute? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it's a benefit to the whole OSM community. But it's a question of control, too. Do we wan't to allow a company to control a company(even the nice ones) to use this media to get such influence on the community?
- It's not about Ant or the text style (I like the text, really). --!i! 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- (btw, I don't understand why the discussion occurs on your user page and not on a POTW main page) --Pieren 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- the PotW main page is for the project, not for discussion or critique of the project. Did you mean the talk page? Rw 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I guess he's pointing at the Talk page. I agree that this would be a better place --!i! 08:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you still actively involved in POTW - as in finding a replacement for the post of maintainer?
--Mjjzf 06:46, 25 September 2011 (BST)
Update: I've also added a new category: Category:Map_examples.