Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I've picked up Dave's point above, because it's clear that part of the real problem is that adhoc committees sometimes don't take account of the implications for particular data users (and stylesheets may be the most complicated data user). In this case let's trash footway/cycleway becomes a major problem of deciphering tag-combinations. Maybe we need some meta rules for the process, that recognises the scale of problems that could be created for data users, and proceeds judiciously. If anything, I think the process could be guided better not by more emphasis on problems created for data users, but on more focus on the very long term, very broad scope goal of a complete map of the entire world. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Tom Chance wrote: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. People can do this already, and I'm sure that a good proposal created by a working group would easily be accepted in a wiki vote. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote Aka the people who have time and money to get to SOTM decide approach? I still prefer the people who care about the issue decide approach. - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals On the one hand, you still cannot force software/stylesheet developers to use your proposal. On the other hand, we could try the same thing right now. The path proposal could have been successful long ago if applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see CycleMap). It's on the todo list. It screws up the stylesheets in horrible ways due to the hundreds of tag combinations that end up meaning cycle path as far as the cycle map is concerned, so we're investigating more sane ways to handle it. On the potlatch side of things, potlatch2 will load map feature presets from an XML description file which will be supplied to the editor as a user parameter -- this can be used by whoever to add whatever. The renderer for potlatch 2 is halcyon for which Richard is currently working out stylesheet files -- again these are user selectable. Potlatch 2 demo at: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/potlatch2/potlatch2.html (obviously at a very early stage, and presets file is hard-coded -- it won't be) Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote: There was a discussion on this list about doctors vs. doctor and the conclusion was to use doctors, as this was more natural for native speakers. I don't regard this as purely chaotic ... Regards, ULFL doctors is a contraction of doctor's (doctors') surgery. the example in the wiki specifically says not to use butchers which is exactly the same contraction from butcher's or butchers' shop neither doctors nor doctor on the wiki are marked as being accepted i gave it as a simple example of where there is no clear guidance in the wiki but the editors have caused compliance with one form ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Ulf Lamping wrote: Liz schrieb: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Nop wrote: You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring a newly established tagging scheme into all major editors and renderers in a consistent way. Right now, it is purely chaotic. A simple example of this is amenity=doctors and amenity=doctor discussed a little earlier, where neither tag on the wiki is accepted but one has been taken up the editing software. There was a discussion on this list about doctors vs. doctor and the conclusion was to use doctors, as this was more natural for native speakers. Yeah, and it confuses non-native speakers since it just looks like a plural, while most places they'd want to tag would only have one doctor... But anyway, that wasn't the discussion here :-) It's still putting a lot of power in the hands of the people in charge of the editors though if they can decide what tags to use. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote: The path proposal could have been successful long ago if applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see CycleMap). It's on the todo list. It screws up the stylesheets in horrible ways due to the hundreds of tag combinations that end up meaning cycle path as far as the cycle map is concerned, so we're investigating more sane ways to handle it. Dave I tend to think that form a committee comes down to watch the wiki page - ie not substantially different to current practice. Committees are just an efficient way to make progress on part of a problem. The key thing is making sure the other parts of the problem don't get ignored. At least an open wiki process is open. I've picked up Dave's point above, because it's clear that part of the real problem is that adhoc committees sometimes don't take account of the implications for particular data users (and stylesheets may be the most complicated data user). In this case let's trash footway/cycleway becomes a major problem of deciphering tag-combinations. Maybe we need some meta rules for the process, that recognises the scale of problems that could be created for data users, and proceeds judiciously. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hello Tom, So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line with the new schema would kick off. Yes I'd be happy with that. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi, I am a mapper who would be happy to have some kind of governance process to the dispute of tags or acceptance of them. As has been mentioned membership of OSMF and participation of SOTM should not be factors, however we are all quite technically literate so why note have IRC meetings every quarter to vote and discuss the proposals? Also for the carrot and stick to be workable we would have to get the Potlatch/JOSM (carrot) developers on side, along with the KeepRight (stick) developers. Only if they were willing only use tags that had been accepted by a board would the process work. Ciarán ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Tom Chance wrote: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. People can do this already, and I'm sure that a good proposal created by a working group would easily be accepted in a wiki vote. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote Aka the people who have time and money to get to SOTM decide approach? I still prefer the people who care about the issue decide approach. - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals On the one hand, you still cannot force software/stylesheet developers to use your proposal. On the other hand, we could try the same thing right now. The path proposal could have been successful long ago if applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see CycleMap). So where's the difference between your suggestion and the current situation, except that you want to limit participation to people at SOTM? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On 10/08/09 15:49, Tom Chance wrote: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote -1 to at SOTM, but +1 to the rest. I think it's entirely reasonable for e.g. community members who use and have experience of canals to form a canal working group to decide how best to tag them on an ongoing basis. And hopefully, if they are established and respected community members, they will make sure they get input from people in the relevant areas of the world where such tags would be used (in the canal example, UK canals and European ones are different in a few important ways). This will lead to a better result than the random proposal of new canal-related tags whenever someone happens to need one, without some consideration of how it might or might not fit in with existing practice. There is nothing at all wrong with giving established, experienced and knowledgeable community members a bigger voice than someone who just joined the project yesterday. Every community has that, either de facto or de jure. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Gervase Markham wrote: (in the canal example, UK canals and European ones are different in a few important ways) and the canals in my area are very different again - not used for navigation at all so i'd need to be able to join in - but would you know that I have a different canal experience and need to be asked if i want to join in? would you look for canal tags and their authors? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part. (I wont joint the osmf while it has links with paypal) The working group would have to produce a report, and be able to show they had considered all input. The recommendations should be final, and only disputed on grounds that agreed procedure hadn't been followed (for example, where it can be shown that a significant recommendation or input had not been considered) A big problem would be setting up the rules for working groups, and this would probably need a working group. It would be useful to go ahead and try creating a working group as an experiment, with the results used to see what the positives and negatives are. This might be too organised a system for many who like OSM to be anarchic, but I feel it becomes more necessary with each passing day, and especially after reading the discussions on paths/footways and woods/forests. Jason Cunningham user:Jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu 2009/8/10 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net Dear all, If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing, it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails, disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We develop, over years, one set of tags like highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus. For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine. Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction. Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the whole thing is falling apart. So... I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line with the new schema would kick off. Does this sound workable? Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
2009/8/11 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote: If you see different interpretations of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the description on the wiki, first. +1 I'd also recommend that if there are several different definitions of a tag currently in use, they should *all* be described as plainly as possible on the wiki. actually I prefer Pieren's approach (if I got it right) of trying to establish _one_ definition instead of having several contradictory ones, where in the end it is not clear anymore, which meaning a certain tag is intended for. To solve the actual chaos in certain tags it could be an intermediate step though, to collect the different possible meanings (as base for further decisions) before ordering the definition and agree on one, if that was your intention I fully agree. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
2009/8/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com actually I prefer Pieren's approach (if I got it right) of trying to establish _one_ definition instead of having several contradictory ones, where in the end it is not clear anymore, which meaning a certain tag is intended for. To solve the actual chaos in certain tags it could be an intermediate step though, to collect the different possible meanings (as base for further decisions) before ordering the definition and agree on one, if that was your intention I fully agree. +1 Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:35:52 +1000, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more than a certain number of people involved they need to be moderated, and then tend to go on for a *long* time. It's worth adding that I've never been to SOTM, and doubt I will ever go unless it's very local to me. Sometimes we have to admit that we can't include everyone, just as this busy mailing list excludes me most weeks of the year. The principal reason for suggesting SOTM is that - in my many years of experience with these matters - it's incredibly hard to sensibly discuss complex matters online. With a good facilitator and a well defined process of preparation, you can often solve these matters in a 100th of the time it would take over IRC or through a mailing list + wiki. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! Jason Cunningham schrieb: I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part. +1 Absolutely. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! James Livingston schrieb: - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more than a certain number of people involved they need to be moderated, and then tend to go on for a *long* time. Another possiblity may be to host a meeting on a Teamspeak server. You'll need moderation, too, but spoken sentences flow much faster than a chat. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! Tobias Knerr schrieb: Tom Chance wrote: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. People can do this already, and I'm sure that a good proposal created by a working group would easily be accepted in a wiki vote. The problem is that a wiki vote is not considered valid by many people. Due to the few numbers participating and voting compared to the vast number of mappers, the process is ridiculed by many. Which is unfortunate, because I think that the process of working out a proposal, publishing and discussing it is pretty good. The problem is just that there is no binding result. If you form a working group which is open to all interested people and this group trys to establish a compatible and working tagging scheme in a public wiki documentation, taking into account all problems, use cases and arguments that users may throw at them, the result of this work should be considered final once no more killer arguments are coming in. - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals On the one hand, you still cannot force software/stylesheet developers to use your proposal. On the other hand, we could try the same thing right now. The path proposal could have been successful long ago if applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see CycleMap). You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring a newly established tagging scheme into all major editors and renderers in a consistent way. Right now, it is purely chaotic. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
2009/8/10 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, ... Does this sound workable? it surely doesn't speed up things ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/8/10 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, ... Does this sound workable? it surely doesn't speed up things ;-) It does. Any speed is faster than going in circles. :-) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
I hope it were faster than annually at SOTM and that the voting be more participatory since not everyone involved can be at SOTM. But anyway, I like the idea of working groups to handle individual schema upgrades. On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Dear all, If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing, it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails, disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We develop, over years, one set of tags like highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus. For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine. Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction. Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the whole thing is falling apart. So... I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line with the new schema would kick off. Does this sound workable? Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Does this sound workable? I agree in principal, however if a vote is only conducted in person at the SOTM events it penalises everyone unable to attend. If you are going to the trouble to create a working group to nut out complex issues they should more or less have the ability to enact a solution. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
How do you select the people in the working group? You might have dozens of people interested to do some work, so who would choose the lucky ones, and how would it be done without dropping into some popularity contest? Or would you allow competing working groups working on the same problem? Would the community be able to participate in the discussion, or would it just be presented the solution, on which it then has to vote? Wouldn't that vote still be carried out by some random people who for the most part wouldn't be knowledgeable on the subject, so if the solution is a bad one, doesn't it risk approval by people who think it looks nice to have because they don't know better? Why would just two people in a working group be any better than the current method where just one person writes down a proposal, and manages the proposal by himself, influenced by comments on the discussion page? Can you be certain that those people in the working group are able to study the wider questions? Can you be certain they're knowledgeable enough? Would the working group work openly so we can track the work and could bring their attention to obvious flaws of their solution in the process? Ben Tom Chance wrote: Dear all, If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing, it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails, disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We develop, over years, one set of tags like highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus. For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine. Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction. Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the whole thing is falling apart. So... I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line with the new schema would kick off. Does this sound workable? Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
All good questions. As you say, the current situation is really far from optimal, it's just a matter of finding the right process for occasions where we need to make a big change like scrapping a bunch of existing tags in favour of a more logical alternative. On Monday 10 Aug 2009 17:29:50 Ben Laenen wrote: How do you select the people in the working group? You might have dozens of people interested to do some work, so who would choose the lucky ones, and how would it be done without dropping into some popularity contest? Or would you allow competing working groups working on the same problem? Would the community be able to participate in the discussion, or would it just be presented the solution, on which it then has to vote? Wouldn't that vote still be carried out by some random people who for the most part wouldn't be knowledgeable on the subject, so if the solution is a bad one, doesn't it risk approval by people who think it looks nice to have because they don't know better? I personally think that OSM has to follow other open data/source/etc. projects and bed down with some structures to keep the community together. Membership of the Foundation should be the basis for participating in these decisions. Each vote would need at least 60% of members to vote, and proposals would need a majority of say 60% in favour to pass. Perhaps to speed things up these votes could be done online, with particularly contentious issues going to SOTM where face to face discussions are easier to facilitate. In the event that a proposal fails on the wiki, it would be normal for one or two people to volunteer to work up a new proposal in much more detail, to be discussed by a slightly wider group comprised of anyone interested in the topic. These wouldn't happen often - they're only for quite disruptive changes to existing tagging - so it's unlikely that seasoned mappers and relevant experts would miss the process. If there are competing proposals, the best thing is to have them all properly developed so they can then be discussed, rather than the current situation of 100s of emails that address small parts of the picture Would the working group work openly so we can track the work and could bring their attention to obvious flaws of their solution in the process? Yes, I should think so. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Membership of the Foundation should be the basis for participating in these decisions. Each vote would need at least 60% of members to vote, and proposals would need a majority of say 60% in favour to pass. Perhaps to speed things up these votes could be done online, with particularly contentious issues going to SOTM where face to face discussions are easier to facilitate. -1 If there is any going to be decision-making on the project as a whole especially on the OSM data, please don't require OSMF membership and SOTM appearance. Many people can't afford to join OSMF (think of people in developing countries who can't afford the £15 annual membership fee) and can't afford to fly to wherever SOTM will be. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
2009/8/11 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: If there is any going to be decision-making on the project as a whole especially on the OSM data, please don't require OSMF membership and SOTM appearance. Many people can't afford to join OSMF (think of people in developing countries who can't afford the £15 annual membership fee) and can't afford to fly to wherever SOTM will be. +1 good point. Membership in the OSMF should not be compulsory for participation in the decisions of the community project. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Eugene Alvin Villarsea...@gmail.com wrote: OSMF is not the right place to decide tagging rules: Members of the Foundation are entitled to vote in the affairs of the Foundation. They have no special say in how the OpenStreetMap project is run, just the running of the Foundation. It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data. And the current process is not so bad, see the current map features. As you said, it is more complicated if you try to deprecate old and widely used tags like footway vs path. It was not popular last year, it will not be easier this year. If you see different interpretations of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the description on the wiki, first. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote: If you see different interpretations of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the description on the wiki, first. +1 I'd also recommend that if there are several different definitions of a tag currently in use, they should *all* be described as plainly as possible on the wiki. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
