Template talk:Map Features:smoothness

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 16:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a solution - people stop adding this broken tag to Map Features, and I'll stop removing it. That is my one and only condition. Chriscf 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am generating XML-Files, that are used in different tools, from the Map_features site. Why are you continuously breaking this function? Btw Maplint also uses the Map_features site for tag validation. Stop it! --Al Friede 00:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This feature should not be used in any tools for tag validation. Chriscf 09:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? --Phobie 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Chriscf, you are not constructive! If you think it is broken, tell why! If it should be removed from Map_Features remove it there and do not destroy it here! This is important because the template is not only used on the Map_Features page! --Phobie 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the summary lines:

Chriscf: "hide until someone proposes a usable set of values with objective criteria"
If you do not like the accepted proposal you are free to start a proposal for objective criteria. A editwar is not acceptable!

Sletuffe: "Please use a discussion mean instead of a dictatorial act - expose you idea in the talk page"
Chriscf: "we did - you ignored it"
If you did, you did it on the wrong place! Here is the right place. If you want to discuss it on Talk:Proposed_features/Smoothness or Talk:Key:smoothness that is ok but you should at least put a link to that discussion here to Template_talk:Map_Features:smoothness where you are doing the changes!

Chriscf: "I will NOT allow this to be reinstated until it is fixed - Map Features is restricted for good reason"
You are not not the instance to decide what is good for Map_Features and what not!

I also do not like smoothness but your way of acting is definitely the wrong one! If you want to be constructive try to make a good proposal which deprecates smoothness! I think Proposed_features/mtb_scale is a good example on how a new improved general way scale could look like. --Phobie 04:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Can somebody remove this from the Map Features page until the edit war is over? --Skippern 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do, but remember that this "edit war" does involve only one upset guy. I then suggest to remove all related track and surface information to move them "equally" on another page where final users could know what they can use. (Anyhow, the map feature page does need to reach a usable state, it's far too big to my mind )Sletuffe 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To remove something from Map features you have to edit the Map features-page. Chriscf does not get it and keeps reverting everything added to this template. I do not care much about Map features but I want to keep Key:smoothness alive. --Phobie 12:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true. It's one guy on the wiki but others on the Talk ML. See others on the Talk mailing-list [1],[2],[3],[4], etc... -- Pieren 12:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What from what I said is not true? I read all mails, I know that smoothness is disputed and I also do not like it. But Chriscf is fighting a lonely, ignorant editwar on the wrong page! And from your links only one guy is supporting this editwar! --Phobie 13:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment was for me, but still, I stay on my position, only one guy is doing this edit war. I never said every one agreed with smoothness, and I am well aware of the mailing list, but no one BUT chrisfc has run into this edit war, other have raised objections, and still no one but him have asked acted "out of the process" for it's removal. I would also add that I think we have given him too much power while the vote was quite clear, and no one has ever said that ony 100% yes votes where needed. I have example such as highway=path where the voting ratio was much tight than for smoothness, and because chrisfc didn't bother, there was no problem. The result in acting like this (giving him credit over the 19 guys that voted yes) will just comfort him in his way of doing. Mark my words gentlemen, he will do it again. (Unless it allready happened Proposed features/Status).

• But I'm not stuburned, let's remove smoothness from Map Features, let's ignore ~40 people who discussed on it, 19 who voted yes on it, and because they are not here anymore and chrisfc is shouting stronger, let's listen to him and find easier to say "just drop it because I don't care about it, and since I don't tag tracks anyway, that will stop the problem I didn't bother to took part of earlier". Nice sense of democracy and discussion. upset sletuffe, but not making trouble edits to try to impose my view on tracktype Sletuffe 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One way to get over this might be to get more input on Phobie's proposal for a better surface tagging system. The draft proposal have had some input and improvement already, but up to now only 3 or 4 persons have taken part, as there are plenty people who are arguing for and against smoothness. --Skippern 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should send a RFC to the mailinglist? --Phobie 14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do! --Skippern 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here the real truth will come : people are lazy, and/or the process is not very good. I make a bet that people have much concerns in saying "smoothness is bad" because yes, it is ! than trying to construct something that is going to be close to perfect but very hard to tag for lazy most guys Sletuffe 19:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've told you before - "best of a bad bunch" is not a valid argument. We don't have to adopt any tags. Chriscf 10:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image for "bad" has "verybad" in its name - solved

I don't know, if the picture is wrongly assigned (falsch zugeordnet?). --Simon Eller (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The pictures have been changed, so this thread lost its relevance. -- Simon Eller (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Added description column

I added description column, as discussed at Talk:Key:smoothness#Making_smoothness_more_verifiable I guess the way I did it will not result in it being translated, but I cant figure out how to do it properly. If someone could, please go ahead. Comments welcomeǃ --Rhhsmits (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)