How to escalate a case to the OSMF board?

To justify hitting back, you would first have to have been hit yourself. But that was not the case at all!

I generally agree with what you write, the tone of the message was clearly less than uncooperative, and the explanation given why he was triggered can maybe explain it, but not justify the aggression. Still I also think it was a quite useful note, but the reply picking on the “must” was offtopic and asking for trouble, useless and unproductive criticism.


Glad that we’re agreeing on that part. Unfortunately the DWG does not agree yet, they still think they’re allowed to restrict my usage of the vocabulary, even with regards to a language the person who made the decision on behalf of the DWG does not even speak, and the DWG still refuses to acknowledge that there might have been a translation error in play here.

That interpretation also goes a bit too far, though. I might have been overly aggressive yes, and I’m willing to apologize for that, but calling it a threat is really not justified by any margin.

Well I’m definitely not getting my account back now, since @woodpeck has made it clear with his post that the offer made by him several posts above is void now, and I will not get my account back under any circumstances.

I fail to find this statement.


The DWG got involved in this topic because of your insult/threat (for which you still haven’t apologised), not because of the word “must”. They just said that HostedDinner’s suggestion was reasonable, not that you’re banned from using “must”.

I personally don’t see an issue with a note text like “X muss umbenannt werden (X has to be renamed)” in the passive voice, it is not an order to anyone.


The message in the note discussion reads a bit differently to me:

The poster who suggested you don’t use “must” is perfectly correct.

Sounds like a ban to me.

1 Like

Um sprachliche Verständigungsprobleme auszuschließen schreibe ich auf Deutsch:

Schreibe bitte einfach eine E-Mail an die genannte Adresse (“Bitte die über die Selbstlöschfunktion versehentlich erfolgte Löschung meines OSM-Kontos “eiskalt-glasklar” rückgängig machen.” oder ähnliches, dazu braucht es keine weiteren Begründungen), dann bekommst du dein OSM-Konto zurück, wenn du das möchtest. Spätestens dann haben sich alle deine Spekulationen, Befürchtungen oder Annahmen über einen angeblich erfolgten Ausschluss von OSM oder eine Sperre deines OSM-Kontos erledigt.
@woodpeck hat dir sogar mitgeteilt, dass die Löschung durch die “self-delete function” und folglich nicht durch die DWG, die Admins oder die OSMF erfolgt ist und dir gesagt, wie du dein OSM-Konto einfach zurück bekommen kannst. Irgendetwas anderes irgendwo hinein zu interpretieren ergibt für mich keinen Sinn.


Hi all,

This topic was flagged because it’s becoming a bit heated after a solution was provided.

I would recommend that if the next steps for an appeal are clear, let the original poster contact the relevant appeal body and avoid discussing in circles here.


This is at most a ban on using in notes language in form of orders/commands and behaving like boss/overseer/emperor in note comments. And confirmation that this specific complaint was valid.

It is not a ban on all your activity in OSM.

So, you are not banned, your account was not deleted by DWG but by yourself. Therefore escalation to OSMF in either case would be a waste of time. So instead of following what was marked as answer you need to follow what is quoted here and was initially described here.

Though apologising to DWG would be nice given mistaken claims. And not accusing other people of what you just did.


The text you’re quoting is about whether or not the user was “banned” from using this kind of language, not whether they were banned from OSM. Also, could you please avoid accusations of “behaving like boss/overseer/emperor”? I see no basis for that and this thread has enough heat as is.

FWIW, I feel that the admonishment not to use the word “must” was unnecessarily confrontational. From what I can gather on this thread, there was nothing wrong with the original note. As such, I find it unfortunate that a DWG member responded in a manner which suggests otherwise.

However, like @Shaun_das_Schaf, I feel that this doesn’t come close to justifying the subsequent verbal attack/threat. And of course, the various misunderstandings about the account deletion and the surrounding back-and-forth are just sad to read. :frowning:


As I understand, this was triggered by claims that some mappers are obligated to map something/must map something. This kind of language in notes is not welcome not all (maybe except rare cases where someone destroyed valid data or added bad data and is requested to repair it - and even there it would be better to avoid it).


EDIT: note that my understanding may be wrong

As I understand this applies to notes phrased like note that I encountered some time ago

“Why this shop is not mapped already? You must map it within 24 hours”

(was in Polish, I am translating based on memory, I closed this note with comment that this kind of language is not welcome and that no action will be taken in case of notes phrased this way)

There was no such claim, you can read the paraphrased version of the original note above: How to escalate a case to the OSMF board? - #17 by eiskalt-glasklar

Also, my account has been restored, so you can even cross-reference with a translated version of the original note if you really want to make sure nothing has been left out.

1 Like

In my opinion, the German word “müssen” does not necessarily mean the same as the English word “must”.

Many people in Germany say for example:

Ich muss zum Bahnhof. Können sie mir bitte den Weg zeigen?

For many people it is the same as

Ich möchte zum Bahnhof. Können sie mir bitte den Weg zeigen?

(“I want to go to the train station. Can you show me the way please?”)

Ich muss auf die Toilette.

(“I need to go to the toilet.”)

Ich muss meine Zähne putzen"

(“I have to brush my teeth.”)

I think, the meaning of “müssen umbenannt” and “muss geprüft werden” is not, that a mapper is obligated to map something. The meaning is more like “The POI needs to be renamed, so that the data is correct”.
Also, I would like to emphasize that this (“müssen”) was not directed to a specific person.
For me personally it is very surprising that someone complains about the use of the word “müssen” in this case.


I look at this from the point of view of someone who reads notes. If the original note was written as private reminder-to-self, it is fine. But notes are a communications channel, and for a second party, it may come across differently: When I open a note, and it says, this and this must be done - I might be tempted to reply to the author of the note, on the wording alone. After all, I understand myself as a direct recipient. I’d gladly accept a friendly explanation, how it was meant :slight_smile:

Take home from this: Notes best just state the facts.

1 Like

Isn’t it a fact that the attributes of two banks must be updated when they merge?


No, this is not a fact, it is a necessity, and that also only, provided, that you even care enough about it, in OSM terms, that makes it subjective.

On the risk of stating the obvious, something like “one person uses a
word in a note that another person finds unsuitable” happens all the
time. This is something that the community can perfectly well discuss
among themselves without involving the DWG or moderators. The only
reason this particular discussion was brought to the attention of DWG is
that user eiskalt-glasklar, in a follow-up comment, told another mapper
to go away and not come back “or else”, which is not within the envelope
of everyday miscommunication, but verges into the threatening, and
that was then reported to the DWG.

The problem is not that eiskalt-glasklar used the word “must” (even
though an argument could be made for “OSM doesn’t HAVE to do anything,
we’re all volunteers”) but that he was so upset about someone suggesting
to use “should” instead that eiskalt-glasklar offended that person
instead of remaining calm.

What lay between eiskalt-glasklar’s last note comment at 6:11 UTC
(“Sorry, but if the consensus among stuff is that bug reports are not
allowed anymore, I will have no choice but to quit my contributions to
OSM for good.”) and him activating the self-delete function, and why he
five hours later claimed that his account was “forcibly deleted by the
DWG”, is not yet clear to me.

All this really is a storm in a teacup and everyone involved would have
done well to heed Supaplex030’s suggestion in that note discussion: take
a deep breath…


That’s true, but I think that’s consensus. Apparently he (reluctantly) accepted that too:

That was probably the reason why this wasn’t discussed further.
So there was still a small discussion about the word “müssen” and the thing with the account deletion.
Now, I think everything has been said, more or less. :grinning:

Indeed it is. At least it has been entertaining to read. :smile:

(This is more a general comment about the word “must” and not specifically in relation to Mateusz Konieczny’s comment. It was just the one I happen quote)

I’m an English speaker from the United States. I’ve had a few people from Europe over the years accuse me of being combative because I say “dude”, “whatever”, “sure”, and like in messages sometimes. Although I can understand why someone from Europe might think those words (dude, like and whatever in particular) are combative, they happen to be part of an accent that’s unique to the area where I live in the United States.

So I often find myself going back and forth on if I should censor how I normally talk on here because people from might it aggressive when that’s not how I mean it. On the other hand, I think we should all be able to speak how would “natively” without having to worry about being discriminated against by people who might come from different countries or be more affluent then us.

I actually had a user call me inarticulate once, which of course I think is completely wrong. But more importantly such comments are extremely intolerant. The person knew I spoke English and was from the United States. I highly doubt they would have said the same thing to someone from Africa or Asia who was speaking in “broken” English. At the end of the day we don’t all have the same education levels, and how people speak can very even within the same geographical boundaries. At least from what I’ve seen we could all do a better job of keeping that in mind when we talk to each other. It’s pretty likely that one person’s unacceptable, unwelcome language is just how another person talks in their daily life.

(P.S. Incase anyone tries to say I am combative sometimes, guilty as charged. Everyone here is. That’s not what I’m talking about though. I’m talking about specific messages I’ve received from people in relation to specific things I’ve said in the past, which has nothing do with me being combative once in awhile. I assume everyone gets the difference).

1 Like

I don‘t think I agree. In my opinion, one should always try to reflect if the chosen words might be attacking, hurting or otherwise misunderstood and change one’s style of writing accordingly. But that is quite a controversial topic, as can be seen in the heated discussions in Germany about gender-neutral language.

1 Like