3 years issue with individual making subjective deletions, created 8 accounts, etc

General talk
21

Yes sure, that’s all I want in the end: the existing features rendered back on the map. Thanks for refocusing!
● On my Komoot activity with GPS and photos there are 2 deleted ways

● Finally, this path is a connection between the village Goebelsmühle and a road at top of the hill, very valuable and safe for hikers since the road CR348 has no sidewalk.
Unrendered v4 by Digital-circle. See video and clear start photo for reference to the train station.

22

Pheeew! You two have a lot of energy.

You could be a highly productive team, you could be Luxemburg Allstars on OSM, a shining example of dedication, if you used this energy in a constructive way.

5 Likes
23

With the motivation we have, we really could be. I actually once made a proposal to coordinate individual surveys but the tilt had already happened.
Which leads me to ask S to please, please calm down :peace_symbol:

Following requests (I’ll also do the fixes):
way 123096070 There has been added a fence, as mapped, blocking off the access to the road. I’ve seen the fence while passing there.
way 149684381 Good, the 2021 imagery showed another tendance.
way 892809415 Weird one, see the fixme. Oddly, I remember see a private sign for a few months on that stairs after the local hiking trail was removed. But ok, can be put back, I also checked the parcels.
way 603101581 Ok, first 15m from N to be de-deactivated, sorry but S is rapidly decaying as the official hiking trail has been removed. This is in line with the new user’s feedback.
Leading me to: Your page long changeset comments do shoo away new contributors. The new contributors I featured only follow the tracks-to-map definition I wrote above. Sorry, but they don’t need essays on your personal preferences. People just block off.

I am (too) tolerant but I am not fine with you painting the picture that you exclusively map what you survey. You did map for years nearly exclusively off of lidar and strava heatmap. Creating many quite crucial path/track links that don’t exist. This indeed led me to distrust your edits. Not finding mapped ways on the ground is very frustrating. I’ve received feedback from several active people having planned (oc unbeknown) off of OSM data who encountered many inexisting or overgrown ways. (Leaving away their expletives.) That is a reality.

I am also not tolerating how and what you wrote on my photo notes in Belgium. See Note: 4065292 | OpenStreetMap The photos are clear, the leaves have fallen months ago.
The private sign at Note: 4064823 | OpenStreetMap leaves room for interpretation, yes people do ignore private signs (which ironically aren’t always legal but we map them). Your further remark, with your screenshot, on the heat of the E path shows exactly your recurring wrong interpretation of strava heatmap. It shows here that a few people got lost searching for ways. As a meanwhile deleted photo note (https://i.postimg.cc/tC9G1Qfh/192587.jpg) showed, there is definitely no connection. Again, this is a perfect example of how faint heatmap looks that should not be mapped without surveying or photos from other people. If you’d map following this, most our problems would instantly be gone. I am not exaggerating.

3 Likes
24

Please - try and make a case for how things should be mapped without making a case against other mappers. On this block I wrote “However, any attempt to bully other OSM contributors will be dealt with harshly.”. You’ve been dangerously close to that both in this thread and your previous one. It’s great that you’re discussing things here but you have to do that in a way that doesn’t belittle other people.

1 Like
25

We are not done. I wanted to leave some time so that the community comments on the last examples I gave…

It’s not a tagging problem, it is mainly about deletions of existing features and other falsifications like the false address!
For these last 3 ways, Kugelbaum confirmed himself that he was not right to erase.
Plus 2 ways (link to village and concrete bridge) we discussed here more above and he pseudo-restored.
Plus these steps he deleted in 2021 then restored here after I posted evidences here.
Plus a path leading to a bench he deleted v5 in 2021, I restored, then he deletes again v7 in 2023 but he restores v8. Seriously!
Plus 2 ways confirmed by contributors Stijn Bossuyt here and loukote here, these guys are part of the community.

TEN FEATURES FALSIFIED confirmed here and ZERO confirmation i added fake ways. Reminder, I listed about 35 issues in my external file.
So what… isn’t this enough to confirm he repetitively falsifies data!
Do we need more??? I’m getting tired of wasting my energy!

26

I said (and you quoted me above) “try and make a case for how things should be mapped without making a case against other mappers”. In your reply above you have completely failed to do that.

You are just repeating some of the same things, such as:

As I’m sure everyone here is aware your addition of “fake ways” was extensively discussed here, and was one of the things mentioned in this block here as well.

With regard to your interpretation of “paths” (or historical paths) in Luxembourg. I’ve reviewed copious evidence provided by “both sides” in the dispute. One view isn’t exclusively correct and the other side wrong - what is needed is a bit of common sense and a bit of compromise. Messages such as the one that you have just posted unfortunately suggest that you are utterly incapable of that.

OpenStreetMap, by its very nature, is a shared enterprise. If you can’t work together with other people I can only suggest that it is not the project for you.

(to be clear, I’m writing as one of the Data Working Group people who has been involved in this dispute over the years).

6 Likes
27

EXCUSE ME??? I just synthesised what has been confirmed in this post, by other contributors and I counted how much has been confirmed.

You are ignoring the demonstrations and try to reverse the situation by making a case against me ! You just allowed youself to do what you’ve suggested us to avoid. Since you are going on that pathetic path, I’ll defend myself.

To all contributors reading, please keep a neutral critical mindset based on facts. Like on this post, my experience has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest among certain DWG members. Instead of prioritizing impartial assessment based on data and facts, some have overlooked misjudgments to maintain favorable relationships with their peers. Hello favoritism/nepotism! Be aware that several of these individuals run businesses that benefit from OSM data. Unlike them, I am solely a volunteer with no commercial ties to OSM.

The DWG is prone to errors also, they are certainly not perfect! They are supposed to intervene for OSM’s data and rely on facts with knowledge. Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, I’ve been able to teach SomeoneElse something after he dared jumping on me with “As xxx makes clear” " thinking i had reverted a CS but he was just fooled by the software. @SomeoneElse, you didn’t even excuse yourself! Awful style!

You failed here too claiming @mariotomo was bullying but others thought his comments were OK. He just genuinely cares about data.

So it would be more relevant to have evidence to support what you’re saying about me otherwise that is defamation and punishable by law! You have never been able to point directly with text or data showing i have bad behaviour throughout the multiple times I’ve asked in order to understand. No wonder I’m pissed off!

All my blocks explained:

  1. 2016, I was using MPs to ease my contributions because iD is a hassle. I’ve admited this and corrected myself.
  2. 2021, is when this issue started, woodpeck asked both parts to only contribute what we had surveyed while DWG would investigate, no investigation response was ever given though.
  3. 3 days later, even though the day before i sent woodpeck GPS data, photos etc of my survey, this unfair block states my CS was not based on a survey. This is the block that made me lose hope about the DWG.
  4. unfair block on a desperate attempt to warn my region (LU is small) directly on fixmes or CS with evidence, because after several months there was still no investigation response from DWG, deletions were still going on.
  5. unfair block about a feature I’ve demonstrated correct
        1. unfair blocks because I was still attempting to warn my region.
  1. unfair block because woodpeck was fed up after I reported ltwo AKA Kugelbaum for deleting cliffs.

All this non sense yet I keep my account!? I know where i stand!

That thread from dpolovinkin you linked has nothing to do with “me adding fake ways”! It’s a complaint about “too many cliffs based on LIDAR”, he dared to erase many before discussion. Several people @Mammi71 @Vinzenz_Mai @tekim @yvecai either confirmed what he did was “bad style”, the cliffs I contributed were correct and/or that LIDAR is a good tool. dpolovinkin even restored them!

Indeed I don’t want to work with a person having unethical behaviours and questionable contributions demonstrated in this post! Yet you ignore it all… I’ve always welcomed others to discuss with me, should it be critics with evidences. I don’t mind and would gladly correct myself!

28

oh, another thread!
just to mention, there were also some people there in my thread who were saying that such lidar mapping is redundant/unnecessary, you just, as I see, decided not to mention it here, when you obviously went through all the thread collecting usernames for this thread for make this…argument…? :slight_smile:

And oh, you again warping the situation here, I restored those cliffs not because I saw that they are correct, don’t make a wrong assumption, but because it is only right, I realised, to not change anything before there is a consensus in community.

29

And it’s actually quite perplexing, putting topic aside, to see someone with 10 blocks in his profile who really thinks that virtually all of them are unfair and he was so wronged.

To rephrase: “if everywhere you go smells bad, maybe it’s time to check your shoes”, don’t you think?

30

I hope that both (@dpolovinkin and @SHARCRASH) of you realize that you are not collecting any brownie points for your continuous arguing and that you are both well on the way to joining the small and exclusive group of people that have been perma-banned from participating in OSM.

If you can’t reach consensus on how to map something specific, then simply stop mapping it and leave it to other people. There are always more than enough other things to do in OSM.

2 Likes
31

hi Simon, is there a mistake here, what are you talking about, which continuous arguing? I see other people having big and heated discussions here, I literally just chimed in. And me perma-banned from OSM - for which exact reason?

1 Like
32

While you might be the innocent bystander, you are still fuelling the conflagration, so please simply stop.

3 Likes
33

Hi Simon,

I’m trying to highlight that several features already properly tagged and positioned have been abusively deleted. The author of the deletions acknowledged himself his errors and restored some, albeit with mistakes. That’s why I told SomeoneElse it’s not a “tagging issue” rather a “deletion issue”.

@ZeLonewolf emphasized “The important thing is to establish an editing issue and then a pattern in the first place.” I’ve waited 3 weeks so that people here can acknowledge and/or comment if there is any tagging issue, no one commented. So in my post i compiled them back to demonstrate what seems to me a pattern. If it’s not, please explain and give the number of examples needed.

Please feel free to point out the words, the phrase in my post that shows I’m flaming the discussion.

I’m just following suggestions here yet some people bark at me.
So again in order to follow suggestions, what do I have to do now?
Continue posting every deletion in the forum?
Wait a tagging discussion about elements there were already properly tagged?
Gentle reminder: 3 years old issue…

34

The main patterns and editing issues I see here are:

  1. Inability of @SHARCRASH to get to the point
  2. Ten DWG blocks without change in behavior
  3. @SHARCRASH’s exhausting communication style that makes people not want to deal with them

Therefore I assess that:

  1. @SHARCRASH is probably in the right on many or most of their editing disputes
  2. It doesn’t matter that much because the signal to noise ratio of their communication style is so low that it massively demotivates anyone that might want try to investigate or intervene
  3. DWG shares some blame in allowing an account with ten blocks to continue editing
  4. The forum moderators share some blame in allowing this thread to continue and lend credence to the idea that anything about this word salad of a complaint is normal.

@SHARCRASH I hope you will understand that the main reason nobody is listening to you is because your messages are incredibly time-intensive to read, parse, and comprehend. They bring up long editing disputes from the past that require the reader to jump into deep rabbit holes to get up to speed on.

All this adds up to my conclusion that you are so utterly disrespectful of people’s time that you think nothing of asking them to spend massive amounts of time on what amounts to a research project.

3 Likes
35

“some” rather than “most”; it’s at best 50/50, probably slightly less than that.

A long term block is very much a last resort, the OSM equivalent of a “death penalty”. We try to give people a chance to understand the issues and to change. Also note that the SHARCRASH account isn’t mapping at the moment so the DWG doesn’t have any mapping activity from it to deal with. Arguably the “fake cliffs” issue needs looking at, but there are ongoing questions about what is a cliff and how to tag them in OSM - see here, here and here, and that sort of “data tidyup” (once more discussions have happened) doesn’t need to be by the DWG.

The forum mods may decide that more posts here are unhelpful, though and that some action is needed to enforce a more collaborative attitude - that’s a separate issue.

36

Sorry for being thorough and demonstrate with several facts… I’m not forcing anyone to check everything though. It’s obvious that contributors just need to check some of the examples i listed.

Three years ago, when the dispute started, woodpeck promised a response after investigation. I never ever received any! I’m not the only one complaining about the lack of transparency, @ivanbranco stated here likewise. No wonder this became “a rabbit hole”, as you say.

You haven’t demonstrated this. Again, you are defaming without any backed up evidence!

I demonstrated it is not a tagging issue and the elements exist! We undergo erasures and the eraser even admitted his errors. Yet I would be blocked for defending my point??? Where is the logic in this???

Indeed I stopped contributing at the request of woodpeck. I’m following the rules since the beginning! Kugelbaum in contrary changed account and continues editing.

37

Dear members,

After careful consideration and due to numerous reports about the last posts, I have decided to write something here. Unfortunately, the discussion here has lost its quality and no longer adds value to our community.

As an administrator, it is important to me to maintain a positive and productive environment where everyone can freely express their opinions. Unfortunately, this is not being achieved in the current debate. Please remember that behind every screen is a real person with beliefs and opinions just like yours. Let’s treat each other with respect and debate constructively, even if we disagree.

So I ask you all to keep your posts factual and avoid personal attacks. This is the only way we can maintain a harmonious and productive discussion climate, as long as it is respectful and constructive. Please make sure that your posts make a real contribution to the discussion and respect the opinions of others.

Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.

4 Likes
38

I’m wondering about something. In various arbitration mechanisms that I know of, people are allowed to receive assistance so as not to shoot themselves in the foot. I suspect that the persons in charge of making decisions appreciate the help too because those who shoot themselves in the foot tend to shoot everybody in the process.

I know that Sharcrash has received assistance but this has not extended to speaking on his behalf. I’m not sure that it was included in the proposal in the first place.

Could it be a mechanism that we’d like to have?

3 Likes
39

This “underground mine fire” of a dispute seems to be kicking off again - I can see edits to e,g, this which seem to disagree with each other.

@SHARCRASH @Kugelbaum can I please make one suggestion to both of you? Please try and look beyond binary divisions of “there is a path here” / “there is not a path here”.

Use more tags that help explain what you can see. We have surface=ground but that does not say much - what is the trail_visibility like? Are there any hazards or obstacles? Would a smoothness tag help? Where relevant, what tracktype would be appropriate?

3 Likes
40

While I fully agree with you, I actually complain about black and white thinking nearly everyday …the sole reason I escalated a bit (imho) is for the reasons I commented on his changeset.
Yes, I do have seen very few of these appearing where I don’t know the source of. If I’ve been accused by mistake, fine by me. I’ve done mistakes as well.

As I’ve written to you, I am all for peaceful coexisting while listening to each other, without hate.