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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. :-)
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
--- 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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
