Changeset: 67446142
California rail
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (14760 en) |
---|---|
source | OSM/ORM conventions |
Discussion
-
Comment from Adamant1
I'm wondering why you put "UP" in the name of the railroad segment. UP is an abbreviation of the operator and the operator name should stay in the operator tag. The name of the line is Valley Subdivision. It was that way for years and it was fine (not to mention, that's just it's name is). For someone that goes off about keeping "legacy" tagging so much, it's odd you'd forgo it here to add something that's clearly wrong. Or is something like that only relevant when its something you don't want changed? Also, did you consult anyone from the local community or get their consensus before you re-tagged things? Or is that another thing that's only relevant when it comes to stuff where you live?
(Btw, in bringing up those things, it's solely to point out your obvious hypocrisy in using arguments against doing something that you don't even apply to your own actions. The main thing is, that it's just wrong name tagging. Although the hypocrisy is important also).
-
Comment from stevea
There are two Valley Subdivisions in California, that's why. See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads, or https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways, where you can read about the "proximity exception" for nearby similarly-named railways by different operators.
You prove once again you cannot say something without insults, and you deepen your slide into "poor OSM mapper" by not performing the simple step of reading the appropriate wiki to answer your question.
-
Comment from Adamant1
Like I didn't already know that. I didn't ask for links to a wiki. I asked why you did it. Referring me to something I've already read isn't answering the question.
To quote you "There are two Valley Subdivisions in California." Notice IN CALIFORNIA. Now, to quote the thing about proximity that I'm pretty sure you read already since you supposedly know more then I do about all things OpenStreetMap "It is OK to precede a railroad name with an operator when two or more otherwise-identically named lines in close proximity would create serious confusion." Notice it says it's OK to do in cases there might be a case of "SERIOUS CONFUSION" due to CLOSE proximity. One is in the Chico area and the other is in LA. Not only is that not "close proximity" (their about the same distance away as some European countries) there's also zero chance of anyone being confused about which one is which. Again, it hasn't had the UP on it forever now and it's been fine.
Also note the wiki says its fine to do "for now until the operator and owner tags become more widespread." Which they clearly are now, the particular exception of putting the operator in the name was suggested before they were, it's clear it wasn't meant to continue after they are widespread. Let alone be added back after they become that way.
Also note that while I just said this particular thing you mapped was mapped wrong, your attacking me as a mapper overall, once again just for asking you a question none the less. So again, you make things highly personal while claiming to be the civil one. I'd also like to know me asking about something you did is "mapping." So while your the person going off others word salad, your the one saying none sense like that asking a question about something makes me a bad "mapper" some how.
Lastly, again, I thought it is "all about the local community dude." So where did you consult the local community in the Chico to see if it was OK to change the names before you did it? Or again, does that only apply to you and parks in Santa Cruz?
-
Comment from Adamant1
BTW, now that the wiki contradicts you, ten bucks says you'll either deflect away from it by either ignoring it completely or going on thing about how it's "all ambiguous anyway man." Or you'll have some other B.S. reason why it should be discounted. Just like you did with the park thing, were the wiki was a cool source to use until it turned out it actually didn't support your opinion.
-
Comment from stevea
I haven't any clue what you know or don't know. If giving you links to a wiki answers your question as I do my best to remain polite in the face of your continuing verbal abuse, that's what I'm going to do: refer you to a wiki. So, RTFM. Prefixing with UP is not "clearly wrong," though it may be "wrong" in your opinion. Find a way to say that and suggest that it be changed for a good reason: see where that gets you.
(There are a fair number of rail mappers in California in OSM, we work together to achieve harmony in the wiki and the map and naming this "UP Valley Subdivision" was a consensus that emerged among us, the results of this are documented in the wiki. Yet I do patiently listen to your opinions about why you think it shouldn't be the way it is).
Not only did I read "the proximity rule" I referred you to, I wrote it. If you think it needs re-writing or disagree with it, OK, "do the right OSM thing about that."
If you think that "IN CALIFORNIA" is somehow a "wrong distance" to apply proximity (it does disambiguate them in the state rail wiki), then how about you say something like "Naming UP Valley Subdivision in Northern California by prefixing with UP isn't necessary in my opinion, as it isn't especially proximate to the SCRRA Valley Subdivision in Southern California. I propose we remove the owner/operator prefixing these, naming them both 'Valley Subdivision.'" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that might work!
I could even get behind something like that, worded in that sort of positive-suggestion, how-about-this? sort of way. But you didn't (yet still might). See: mapping (being a mapper in OSM) isn't 100% about nodes, ways and geometry marrying geography. In this project, mapping includes reading (and sometimes contributing to) wiki, talking with other mappers (in civil tones, with humility and a polite demeanor) and reaching agreement.
"Reaching agreement" is something you repeatedly have proven to me and others you have difficulty achieving. Your rancorous tantrums so frequently red-line into verbal abuse that I had no choice but to disengage from you. This (changeset) seemed a simple "RTFM" reply I could make which broke my "No Contact," yet your petulant, bitchy, argumentativeness once again emerges. Please, find better methods to act civil and people will likely treat you that way in return.
Try it! Right here and now, take me up on my suggestion above (using your own words). I'll bounce it off a couple of relevant people (maybe I bring in happy5214 and Clorox into the dialog) and perhaps we nod our heads at what you say, agree with you and then you might get what you want. But with a temper tantrum like above, no.
While writing this reply, I was interrupted by yet another post by you to this changeset: you proved you couldn't wait six minutes for me to answer, (wrongly) predicting something I'll do so you'll lose a ten buck bet. Wow, man. Your days here are likely numbered unless you lose the bad attitude and constantly abusing people. I'm about to click the Comment button, but it feels like a mistake engaging with you at all.
-
Comment from Adamant1
"I haven't any clue what you know or don't know. If giving you links to a wiki answers your question as I do my best to remain polite in the face of your continuing verbal abuse"
This is the exact kind of none nonsensical arguing for the sake of it stuff you do. What's verbal abuse about saying you tagged something wrong or asking you to follow the same rules you tell everyone else they should. THEIR YOUR RULES DUDE.
And how the freak are exact quotes from the wiki, THAT YOU WROTE, my opinion? Then you say I should provide a source for to back up my opinion (that's actually your writing), when it came from the link that you yourself sent me. that again is YOUR OWN FRAKIN WRITING AND it's your source. I don't need to provide a link to the exact thing you link to. Then you accuse me of having split personalities. That's exactly what someone with a split personality would do. "That's not my writing. I wrote that. Read this link. You should backup what you say with link I just gave you." It's makes zero sense man. You don't even apply your own rule that you wrote to yourself, then you it's not a rule, then it is because you wrote it. Jesus Christ.
" If you think it needs re-writing or disagree with it, OK, "do the right OSM thing about that."
Where did I say this had anything to do with the rule man? It's about this particular usage of it BECAUSE THEY AREN'T CLOSE TOGETHER. Which I said. For Christ sake. I'm not going to go through some protracted process to have a rule changed that I don't even care just so one edit can be fixed that doesn't fix it. ITS NOTHING ABOUT THE RULE. ITS THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.
"n this project, mapping includes reading (and sometimes contributing to) wiki, talking with other mappers (in civil tones, with humility and a polite demeanor) and reaching agreement."
Do it yourself then man. Have one conversation with me where actually have humility instead of talking about great you are every chance you can. Have one conversation where you don't talk down to me about how I should behave or what your imagined rules of OSM that I should follow are. Which you do in every paragraph. Have one conversation where you don't go off about how I'm arrogant or have multiple personality disorder or any of the other useless, personal, insulting, things you keep saying at the same time you go off about your "civility." You can't go one sentence without throwing in some useless crap like that. Not even conversation, even one paragraph. I DARE YOU. I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE IT IN YOU. I've got more then plenty of civil paragraphs to you. You have zero to me. Until your actually willing to do what you keep telling me to do, you can piss off with it. I've already told you I'm not playing this hypocritical game where I'm the only 100% civil person while everyone treats me like crap. I'm sick and tired of it.
"Reaching agreement" is something you repeatedly have proven to me and others you have difficulty achieving."
I reach agreement with people all the time on plenty of things. All you do is tell people to read a wiki page, that local mappers and consensus is important, and then drop them when it doesn't suit you. And you keep going off about things that aren't even issues and know one did. None of it has zero to with "reaching agreement" on anything. We shouldn't have to "reach agreement" on miss tagging anyway. ITS YOUR OWN FREAKEN RULE. There's nothing to reach agreement on. Like I said, There's ZERO in OSM about how people need to consult other people before changing tags or editing things anyway. Let alone do they have to read through a long winded Wiki page or "lobby" a project to do it. ZERO, NOTHING, NADA. Repeating it over and over like it's gospel doesn't make it true.
Also, this is your edit. It's your account and your responsible for what you do with it. Not some train mapping group your a member of. If you make mistakes, its on you. Not them. Otherwise, the edits should be done under a group account with a link to project or at least a mention of it in the changsets and the on the accounts profile. As it would qualify as group mass editing at that point and I'm pretty sure that's the rule for things like that. I'm pretty sure everyone else in the group would take responsibility for their own mistakes to and not coup out by putting it on the rest of the group like you are.
-
Comment from Adamant1
You seem to have an extremely miss guided opinion to that things decided in a "group" (whatever that means), can circumvent already more established and fundamental guidelines. Which is patently wrong. The rules about name tagging is a basic core thing to OSM and isn't ignored in mapping because a small group of people decided they were going to ignore it. For instance, a group of people who like dogs can't unilaterally decide to go around and re-tag everything with the name of dog breeds just "because consensus." Which I doubt you got in the first place for your "rule" anyway.
-
Comment from Adamant1
Since you didn't post anything about it on the talk page of the naming article before it was added to it or the rails article. So, yet again something else you don't do yourself but expect everyone else to.
-
Comment from Adamant1
So I looked into it more, and I still don't see anywhere where you discussed the "proximity rule" (it's not even a rule. It's more like a suggestion). With anyone. Let alone adding an operator abbreviation to the first part of a name (in case you missed it, there's a whole section in the names article called "Abbreviation (don't do it)"). There's no discussion about it anywhere. Not in the links you provided me, the name article, or anywhere else that I could see. There's no specific discussion how to tag Valley Subdivision in any of those places either. Which you specifically said was discussion and that consensus was reached on. All there is a bunch of edits on the pages by you. Which mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Anyone can create a project page and put whatever they want on it. The content doesn't automatically become a "rule" in OSM just because someone put it there either.
So instead of doing this game where you ignore any counter evidence, bag on me instead, and provide links that don't even show what you say they do, either actually provide links to a discussion you had where consensus was reached by a bunch of people on the proximity thing and Valley Subdivision also, not just a few people in a project either like you said there was, or correct your edits. If you don't fix them, I will do it myself or see if an admin can. If you try to edit war me or continue with your personal stuff, I will report you. At least I'm giving you one more chance to actually provide evidence to support your claims. It's more then id like to do or I think you should have at this point. I could have just fixed all this in the first place without contacting you. I did it as a good faith gesture though, because I figured you'd want to fix your own problems. Don't prove me wrong or make it a waste of my time and good faith by continuing the other stuff. Just actually back up what you say or fix the issue if you can't. If you made a mistake, no big deal. We all do once in a while, but it won't help if you dig in your heels and don't deal with it.
-
Comment from stevea
No. Just as you don't like private missives more widely discussed, I do not discuss private missives where consensus was reached, or however it may have been achieved, that is what documenting consensus on wiki does. I owe you nothing, especially after my sincere efforts to communicate with you resulted in every single one (I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE) of your replies to me (even as you initiate new ones!) as bad-mouthing, insults, baiting/provoking, abuse or all of the above. I have extended patience with you and all it gets me is your rancorous spew. This is the very definition of a troll does.
Your "it's odd you'd forgo it here to add something that's clearly wrong" is not only presumptuous and inflammatory, it is for those reasons at least, abusive. You likely aren't aware you even do this, but that a serious problem you have. Not a problem has OSM with you, yet we may remedy that by asking you to either change or leave. The first question you ask is abusive: it smacks (heavily) of accusatory tone (nonsensically) when it has no need to do so. Your second question is the same. Is possible to not say "you, you, you..." and "your obvious hypocrisy" and "your (you're) just wrong" so much? These are inflammatory. In 50 words or less, all of them strung together rise to the level of "verbal abuse," especially when they echo similar tone over 100% of your communications to me. I've had enough; this is exhausting. It appears there are no changes in Adamant1 for the better ahead, as I doubt there is any realization (though not on my part) how far he has to go to perform simple, civil, adult, productive dialog towards collaboration. With virtually everybody else here, I collaborate. With Adamant1, I feel forced to constantly defend myself against spurious accusations and back-pedaled nonsensical word salad. No more.
Report me all you want. I'm fine, you're in the doghouse. OSM isn't a game, it's a project. Project yourself into it well (or don't, as is your seemingly only behavior).
In short, shut up and map. If you engage in civil dialog, something which I have repeatedly entreated you to do (with 100% failure on your part), I will respond in kind. But it is because you continually put me (and virtually all others in this project with which you attempt to communicate) on the defensive — a sad tactic I usually see in children, yet I have also seen in personality-disordered adults, and one most everybody sees here), I will cease trying to convey to you what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of discourse here, as you either fail to listen to these, fail to implement them or fail to develop your own communication method which isn't inflammatory. I won't even wish you "good luck" any more, even though I believe you desperately need it. As well as courage, perseverance and discipline.
"Giving me one more chance" made me laugh out loud, it is so ridiculous. Your actions (in the map) speak much more loudly than your word salad. So, map. Or contribute to wiki. Or reach consensus with others and map even better. Or all of the above. But stop directing your verbal diarrhea at me already, please. As others notice me not defending myself at Adamant1's spurious, false attacks, he should crawl back into shatever corner from which he wriggled up from. I choose to engage less, less, and finally, not at all. Disparagement continuing from him, included.
-
Comment from Minh Nguyen
What in Sam Hill is going on here? I’m seeing comments between you two flying by in the changeset comment tracker and it really stands out among the constructive comments that otherwise turn up. Clearly, there are hurt feelings and a total breakdown in trust.
I’m not even sure I want to know who originally started this whole flamewar and where, but the ad hominem attacks, name-calling, backhanded compliments, etc. need to stop. Both of you have been contributing to this project long enough to know that the tone of this discussion is inappropriate. With the decentralized nature of communications in this project, there’s not much point in anyone blocking one or both of you; you’d just migrate elsewhere. But it would be a shame if you get burnt out and stop contributing and even worse if your dispute discourages others from contributing too.
I’d encourage you both to take a break – from communicating with each other, from discussing the tags that you’ve been disagreeing over, even a temporary break from OSM – whatever it takes to get past this episode. Take the long view: in a month, will you be proud that you won the argument or frustrated that you spent so much time and energy doing so? In five years, will you feel as strongly about your differences over these tags? Tags could look totally different by then!
-
Comment from Adamant1
"I’m not even sure I want to know who originally started this whole flamewar and where"
Thanks for the comment. An outside opinion is pretty helpful sometimes and I totally agree with what you said. It doesn't really matter where it started or who started it. Its inappropriate on both our sides and we can both do better. The last thing I want to do is discourage people from contributing to the project and I don't think Stevea does either. So I'll do my part to be more civil. I think we are making progress on it, but a break might be good to. Like you say, tags will be different in five years anyway. So it really doesn't matter that much ultimately. Especially if nothing gets done because we are both to bickering back forth with each other.
Stevea, feel free to leave the abbreviation on the name for now. We can always revisit it later when we have both calmed down and can discuss it more civilly. Hopefully we can work together more amicably on things going forward.
-
Comment from stevea
I'd be fine leaving it on, I'd be fine if Adamant1 were to remove it, then document that he did that in the wiki (saying why, that it is unlikely for these to be confused, except in a California-wide context), as I agree they are not proximate except for being in the same state.
Minh, thank you for your usual dose of sanity.
-
Comment from stevea
BTW, I believe it started largely at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dpark#Do_beaches_qualify_as_parks.3F as Adamant1 asked the question embedded in the link. Though I agree it doesn't matter who started it.
-
Comment from Adamant1
"'Id be fine leaving it on, I'd be fine if Adamant1 were to remove it"
Thanks. I appreciate the compromise and if I do delete it I'll be sure to document it in the wiki.
"BTW, I believe it started largely at"
Since you brought it up, personally I'd go with it starting at you closing my notes with what seemed like hostile messages. I think both our responses to that original incident, which was probably from lack of understanding about how each of us communicate and because we are both from California (which tends to bred unnecessary confrontation for some reason), led to every other interaction afterwords being unnecessarily contentious by both of us. It's a lot easier to do dig a hole then get out of it. That's just my opinion though and I'm still 100% responsible for my part of it.
- UP Valley Subdivision (10291184), v9
- UP Valley Subdivision (10291221), v7
- UP Valley Subdivision (10489978), v20
- UP Valley Subdivision (10490047), v11
- UP Valley Subdivision (10583521), v7
- UP Valley Subdivision (10583522), v12
- UP Valley Subdivision (10583526), v8
- UP Valley Subdivision (10583564), v15
- UP Valley Subdivision (10636599), v10
- UP Valley Subdivision (10750664), v15
- UP Valley Subdivision (16155092), v8
- UP Valley Subdivision (16155094), v9
- UP Valley Subdivision (16155095), v7
- UP Valley Subdivision (16155097), v12
- UP Valley Subdivision (16155098), v13
- UP Valley Subdivision (16256107), v10
- UP Valley Subdivision (16256108), v12
- UP Valley Subdivision (26663033), v8
- UP Valley Subdivision (26663038), v8
- UP Valley Subdivision (26663040), v6
Relations (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |