Usually in OSM there are several different ways to map things, to varying levels of detail. (E.g. As you discovered, you can just tag a road as having sidewalks, or trace out the actual sidewalks themselves.) Generally, as long as the information you're adding is accurate, you're helping. Changing tagging schemes later is a lot easier than re-discovering that information from scratch. If you're really concerned, usually the wiki has good information on what is currently considered best practice.
Incidentally, I think for crossings StreetComplete now only asks about the actual crossing nodes, so no more duplicate quests.
Yeah a lot of these features exist, they're just very fragmented, which given that the OSM community is already pretty small makes it almost impossible for them to reach the critical mass necessary to actually be useful.
You can go look up pretty much any tiny, hole-in-the-wall restaurant on Google Maps and there'll be dozens of user-contributed pictures of the interior, the menu, etc, but on OSM you'll be lucky if the opening hours are accurate.
I'm not sure there's a good solution to this, but certainly more OSM front ends exposing the data and contribution tools to end users helps.
Usually if I need to add a footpath I use the "Create new track recording" feature to trace out the path with GPS, then come back to it later on desktop. Adding paths is pretty awkward to do on mobile, especially since there's no satellite overlay.
StreetComplete lets you place trash cans and benches too (among other things) using the "Things" overlay. IMO Every Door has a much more complicated UI, though it's also more of a full featured editor than StreetComplete. (Though still less so than something like Vespucci.)
> there continued to be people who decided what got built
The distinguishing feature of capitalism is that the people who decide what gets built are private individuals in competition with each other, and incentivised by profit to meet the demands of consumers.
In communism the people who decide what gets built are part of a single central authority with no competitors and no profit motive. That system doesn't work, which is why it collapsed.
I'd quibble with that. Capitalism is a choice, market dynamics are not. E.g. The Soviet Union successfully outlawed capitalism, and in response market dynamics made their country collapse.
Okay, if that's what you meant then I don't think it's pertinent to this specific situation, since false advertising laws passed by the legislature already exist. They just need to be enforced.
Speaking more generally beyond the context of this specific situation, I agree representative democracy moves slower than other systems of government, but I personally don't think that's sufficient justification for ceding control of the legislative process to an unelected oligarchy. I think the overturning of cheveron was good push back against that trend.
What exactly is the problem with the IETF publishing a standard that's theoretically weaker than another standard? They're not forcing anyone to use it, right?
> The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement.
How does stopping agencies from making up their own interpretation of laws do anything to prevent proactive enforcement? (Do you just mean they're now more limited in their ability to make up new laws and proactively enforce those? I'm pretty sure prohibitions on false advertising are actual laws.)
The vast, vast, majority of AI training data is not books. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more text on HN alone than every book in the history of mankind (most of which are also no longer copyrighted).
So now I have to get permission from the government to browse the web? And they can revoke that permission at any time? And we need a great firewall to block citizens from communicating with foreign websites that don't comply with this scheme?
This idea is worse than facial scanning, by a lot.
(Better idea is OS level parental controls combined with government-mandated content tags to let the OS know what content is child-safe.)
The same system that blocks kids from downloading the Pornhub app would also block them from downloading the "Chrome but without parental controls" app.
There are a lot of things to like about the web as an application platform. The security model is a big one for me. There aren't many other application platforms out there where you can just download random apps off the internet and run them with zero worries they'll screw up your system. Plus the web is an open standard, works on desktop and mobile, and has multiple competing independent open source implementations.
I think the intended use case is for things like "give my music player access to my music library" or "open a project directory in this IDE", which wouldn't work well if every app were confined to its own directory.
All of them, unless they're also on the list of examples to exclude (like the Downloads folder).
I think the point is that as long as the user is sharing things on purpose and not by accident, it should be allowed. Selecting the root of the home directory would probably share a lot of things the user didn't really intend to share (because a lot of apps just dump random config files and stuff in there), but if they specifically select a subfolder they probably have a good idea of what that folder contains.
Yes, I think this modern trend towards storing user data in app/website-specific databases instead of in files has been bad for consumer freedom. Files are naturally portable and provide a interface for inter-operating with competing software in a way that data stored in the cloud or an app-specific database does not.
APIs that encourage websites to store user data in files are a positive thing.
Incidentally, I think for crossings StreetComplete now only asks about the actual crossing nodes, so no more duplicate quests.