Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On 3/18/2015 2:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile? I should preface this by stating that these are my opinions, and I know other OpenStreetMap Carto maintainers look at it differently. They are also not the opinion of my employer, MapQuest, and the MapQuest Open style has different cartographic goals. There are no policies on what is rendered, and types of features are decided on a case by case basis. Normally the process of deciding to render a feature and deciding to render a particular tag are separate. You might decide you want to render bus stops, but also find that in the region you're rendering there is a GTFS feed with better data. In OpenStreetMap Carto, these two steps are more entwined. We're aiming at mappers and want to avoid additional sources of non-OSM data. A first consideration is technical. Some of the crazy relation types out there are not designed in a way that they can be reasonably rendered with a standard toolchain. If I can't figure out how to write the SQL to be able to get a data layer suitable for rendering, it almost certainly won't be rendered. I'm only interested in rendering established tags. The primary indicator of this is usage. There are some exceptions to this like national capitals, where there are only many of them. My view is that a tag should be able to obtain reasonable usage numbers on its own merits without being rendered. I also look beyond taginfo numbers to see if they are being skewed by a small number of contributors, mechanical edits, or a bulk import. We don't want to encourage difficult to consume tagging approach. This is why we will not use disused=yes. (#111) The wiki is a source I use, but just one among many. A good read is Andy's comment about changing tags: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913. It is related. And of course, all of this is done in a limited amount of available time. If I decide to work on something with the style it means I'm not working on a different part of it. It's zero sum for me, and I always have more I can work on. Rendering new types of features is about bottom of the priority list for me right now. Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal? In principle, if it were an established tag? Yes. It's very unlikely an established tag would not have a wiki page. How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions? I don't particularly consider the presence of specialist styles. There are styles for most topical interests these days. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
I would assume that in this phase of the OSM lifecycle most new tags would start in specialist renders. For example I expect that the current discussion about campgrounds camp_site=* leading to different types of campgrounds would be rendered in specialist renders for camping first and would be rendered to more general maps once they gain momentum. This makes it important that renderers can show raw attribute tags of namespace tags they show. In this way I can see if more information is hidden behind the symbol shown. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:20 AM Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: On 3/18/2015 2:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile? I should preface this by stating that these are my opinions, and I know other OpenStreetMap Carto maintainers look at it differently. They are also not the opinion of my employer, MapQuest, and the MapQuest Open style has different cartographic goals. There are no policies on what is rendered, and types of features are decided on a case by case basis. Normally the process of deciding to render a feature and deciding to render a particular tag are separate. You might decide you want to render bus stops, but also find that in the region you're rendering there is a GTFS feed with better data. In OpenStreetMap Carto, these two steps are more entwined. We're aiming at mappers and want to avoid additional sources of non-OSM data. A first consideration is technical. Some of the crazy relation types out there are not designed in a way that they can be reasonably rendered with a standard toolchain. If I can't figure out how to write the SQL to be able to get a data layer suitable for rendering, it almost certainly won't be rendered. I'm only interested in rendering established tags. The primary indicator of this is usage. There are some exceptions to this like national capitals, where there are only many of them. My view is that a tag should be able to obtain reasonable usage numbers on its own merits without being rendered. I also look beyond taginfo numbers to see if they are being skewed by a small number of contributors, mechanical edits, or a bulk import. We don't want to encourage difficult to consume tagging approach. This is why we will not use disused=yes. (#111) The wiki is a source I use, but just one among many. A good read is Andy's comment about changing tags: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap- carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913. It is related. And of course, all of this is done in a limited amount of available time. If I decide to work on something with the style it means I'm not working on a different part of it. It's zero sum for me, and I always have more I can work on. Rendering new types of features is about bottom of the priority list for me right now. Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal? In principle, if it were an established tag? Yes. It's very unlikely an established tag would not have a wiki page. How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions? I don't particularly consider the presence of specialist styles. There are styles for most topical interests these days. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On 19/03/2015, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used, and/or be very desirable. Note that actual use is far more important than documentation. For example, some time ago a change in tagging of power stations that had gone through the wiki voting process by the book did not get considered immediately because of usage stats and perceived usefullness. The thread is worth reading in full for people interested in osm-carto decision making : https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is currently a discussion going on, whether the current voting system for voting proposals should be changed. This is the discussion so far: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/22969 Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On 18 March 2015 at 21:43, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Paul, Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile? Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal? I'm not Paul, but I can give you my view: As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case base. How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions? Objects aimed at specific user groups are less likely to be rendered, and if they are rendered they will appear at higher zoomlevels. For example, we don't render fire hydrants because they are of little interest to the general public. -- Matthijs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On 19/03/2015 2:44 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case base. Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used, and/or be very desirable. It is interesting that developers are discussing which tags to render as well as being discussed on the tagging mail list. It seems like we should have the benefit of both discussions. While not all tags need to be, or even should be displayed, I wonder if it might knowing if a tag is likely to be rendered would have an impact the acceptance of tags. It shouldn't, but it might sway voting. Even more so, the decision by developers to add the tag to editors. I would think that having a tag supported by JOSM and iD would more quickly lead to its acceptance. Conversely, not including the tag could result in it being one of the many tags with limited use. Voting is all well and good, but it seems like we need to encourage dialog with developers to support new tags or understand why they don't think the tag is worthwhile of their time and effort. I feel that voting should be just part of the approval process. If we, the mappers, feel like a new tag should be adopted, then we should make sure that developers share our belief. I am not saying that developers need to be part of the initial dialog. We would probaby scare them off from ever taling to us again! I don't think renders will be interested so much in tags with low usage. And at the start new tags have low use thus they don't get rendered. Catch 22. So renders may not actually be too interested in the making of new tags? To me (and I'm not a render) I'd render things that had a good wiki page with some idea of how to render it, lots of use and some 'significance' to the map .. the 'significance' will depend on the render and their desired application. For example cycle maps might include 'bicycle repair station' despite the low usage. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case base. Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used, and/or be very desirable. It is interesting that developers are discussing which tags to render as well as being discussed on the tagging mail list. It seems like we should have the benefit of both discussions. While not all tags need to be, or even should be displayed, I wonder if it might knowing if a tag is likely to be rendered would have an impact the acceptance of tags. It shouldn't, but it might sway voting. Even more so, the decision by developers to add the tag to editors. I would think that having a tag supported by JOSM and iD would more quickly lead to its acceptance. Conversely, not including the tag could result in it being one of the many tags with limited use. Voting is all well and good, but it seems like we need to encourage dialog with developers to support new tags or understand why they don't think the tag is worthwhile of their time and effort. I feel that voting should be just part of the approval process. If we, the mappers, feel like a new tag should be adopted, then we should make sure that developers share our belief. I am not saying that developers need to be part of the initial dialog. We would probaby scare them off from ever taling to us again! Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On 3/18/2015 2:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is currently a discussion going on, whether the current voting system for voting proposals should be changed. Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate a tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for use, as there is no such thing. No approval is needed to create a new tag, to render a tag, or to otherwise do something with a tag that has not passed a wiki vote. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate a tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for use, as there is no such thing. No approval is needed to create a new tag, to render a tag, or to otherwise do something with a tag that has not passed a wiki vote. Paul, Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile? Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal? How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions? Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting process
I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949 I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process
On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949 I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. cheers, Martin This is a page about voting on new ways to tag items so the tagging forum is the correct place. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process
Martin wrote: I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. Perhaps I'm a bit jaded at the moment, but I think [tagging] is a better choice. If something is important then it should have its own list, such as legal-talk, tagging, HOT and the like. If it's not important then here is perfect (includes this email of mine). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process
2010/9/1 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949 I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging] is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes. cheers, Martin This is a page about voting on new ways to tag items so the tagging forum is the correct place. The page is the main page that describes the proposal-process. Prior to making a proposal I generally would suggest to ask others if they already tag a specific thing in a certain way. If not I suggest to discuss the best way to so in [tagging]. After discussion (and eventually modification) of the definition, it should go to the voting. I do not want everybody who wants to vote on new features to read all the tagging-list contributions. Personally I read both list (don't know how I can manage), so this is not my personal concern. If most people here agree that tagging is fine, I'm fine with it too. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer I agree to this, but the name isolated_dwelling was the translation I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the German scientific term Einzelsiedlung, which describes the smallest entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or houses. Of course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms. Sub-hamlet? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
In English usage, a dwelling is a residence. So, a farmhouse would be an isolated dwelling; a building not used as a residence, such as a restaurant or train station, would be an isolated building, but not an isolated dwelling. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:13:32 To: m...@koppenhoefer.com Cc: osmtalk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer I agree to this, but the name isolated_dwelling was the translation I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the German scientific term Einzelsiedlung, which describes the smallest entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or houses. Of course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms. Sub-hamlet? Steve ___ 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] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
Since the English language defines a dwelling as a place where someone dwells, I suspect that the UK government is using the term to mean structures used as residences. The proposed tag, on the other hand, would classify any isolated building as an isolated_dwelling, even if it isn't a dwelling. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:59:57 To: osmtalk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open 2010/5/5 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: - Zitierten Text anzeigen - 2010/5/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Sub-hamlet? http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=subhamletmeta=aq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai= 9,600 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=%22isolated+dwelling%22aq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai= 39,900 hits btw, the UK government seems to use this term as well: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolorg/faqs.cfm?id=114 __ Rural Schools ... What does Edubase record as the rural/urban classifications? Q : What does Edubase record as the rural/urban classifications? Edubase (www.edubase.gov.uk) records the rural/urban classifications as follows: The two Urban values are: · Urban 10k - sparse ·Urban 10k - less sparse The six other values are classified as Rural: ·Town and Fringe - sparse ·Village - sparse ·Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling - sparse ·Town and Fringe - less sparse ·Village - less sparse ·Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling - less sparse __ cheers, Martin ___ 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] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
2010/5/5 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: In English usage, a dwelling is a residence. So, a farmhouse would be an isolated dwelling; a building not used as a residence, such as a restaurant or train station, would be an isolated building, but not an isolated dwelling. sorry, I wasn't clear, I intended an inhabited trainstation or a tavern / roadhouse, not a restaurant. The same for the mill, which was suggesting someone living there rather than focussing on the milling process. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
2010/5/5 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: Since the English language defines a dwelling as a place where someone dwells, I suspect that the UK government is using the term to mean structures used as residences. The proposed tag, on the other hand, would classify any isolated building as an isolated_dwelling, even if it isn't a dwelling. no, it wouldn't. An uninhabited place isn't a settlement either. The proposal says: smallest form of settlement. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/5/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Sub-hamlet? http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=subhamletmeta=aq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai= 9,600 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=%22isolated+dwelling%22aq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai= 39,900 hits Cool, did you notice the first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_hierarchy That kind of settles it, really. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com Cool, did you notice the first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_hierarchy That kind of settles it, really. Note that when the Wikipedia article was first created, the lowest-level settlement was called Lone Farmhouse. It was changed to Isolated dwelling on 14 September, 2006. See the comparison of the contents before and after the change that introduced the term Isolated dwelling here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_settlementdiff=75679894oldid=74320556 Simon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Note that when the Wikipedia article was first created, the lowest-level settlement was called Lone Farmhouse. It was changed to Isolated dwelling on 14 September, 2006. See the comparison of the contents before and after the change that introduced the term Isolated dwelling here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_settlementdiff=75679894oldid=74320556 You looked back further than I did. I do love the use of a Year 7 text book as a source, though... Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
2010/5/4 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Towns and hamlets are usually incorporated in one form or another, isolated buildings aren't, in any case you can tell how isolated a building is by comparing features around it, you don't need to explicitly say it's isolated. I agree to this, but the name isolated_dwelling was the translation I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the German scientific term Einzelsiedlung, which describes the smallest entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or houses. Of course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: please vote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling Err... Aren't those called houses? No. Houses don't generally have names, they have numbers. This proposal is about houses that are so isolated that they don't have street numbers, and they're not even associated with a town. So effectively they're a town by themselves. Only they're too small to be towns, or even hamlets. Hence, isolated dwellings. HTH. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
On 4 May 2010 13:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: No. Houses don't generally have names, they have numbers. This Rural properties in Australia, even those close to towns, often have names... Even if the rural renumbering scheme has also given these places numbers... Houses located within towns usually don't have names, although some do. effectively they're a town by themselves. Only they're too small to be towns, or even hamlets. Hence, isolated dwellings. Towns and hamlets are usually incorporated in one form or another, isolated buildings aren't, in any case you can tell how isolated a building is by comparing features around it, you don't need to explicitly say it's isolated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: yes, it could be houses. It could also be a cave or a tent, but mostly it will be houses. This is a term for settlement classification, not about building types. Well, OK, but you did use the term 'households' Why not use the standard landuse=residential? That's what I've used with just a few properties out on their own. Offtopic Is your name Martin? If so (or even if not), do you *really* have to use that spell checker aggravating graphic? Ta Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
2010/5/3 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well, OK, but you did use the term 'households' Why not use the standard landuse=residential? Because this is about place and not about landuse. I understand place as a tag for human settlements which vary from very small (isolated dwellings) to hamlets, towns, cities and IMHO also metropolis. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: please vote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling Err... Aren't those called houses? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
2010/4/29 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: please vote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling Err... Aren't those called houses? yes, it could be houses. It could also be a cave or a tent, but mostly it will be houses. This is a term for settlement classification, not about building types. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
please vote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition
2009/9/17 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net:
Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importancediff=16oldid=333013
Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to '''Yes'''
and similar change was made for no votes.
actually I don't see the difference ;-), we are counting the votes
manually, IMHO it doesn't make any difference, so recasting of those
votes doesn't seem appropriate to me...
What I forgot: please also point the subscribers of the local lists to
this voting (I already announced on German and Italian ML as well).
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
2009/9/17 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net:
Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importancediff=16oldid=333013
Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to '''Yes'''
and similar change was made for no votes.
actually I don't see the difference ;-), we are counting the votes
manually, IMHO it doesn't make any difference, so recasting of those
votes doesn't seem appropriate to me...
What I forgot: please also point the subscribers of the local lists to
this voting (I already announced on German and Italian ML as well).
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Doesent the wiki system change {{vote|yes}} to yes or approved
automatically?
i would not recast or change votes posted.
The standard way of voting is better, but other format is ok to me as
long as the vote is clear.
But if someone else changes a vote afterward is more complex to find who
voted what and when.
s
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition
The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for highway-definition here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance I suggest to not delete already given votes as they still represent voter's opinion, even if voting wasn't officially opened. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition
I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should those votes be recast? On Wednesday 16 September 2009 09:46:16 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for highway-definition here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance I suggest to not delete already given votes as they still represent voter's opinion, even if voting wasn't officially opened. cheers, Martin ___ 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] VOTING for general highway-definition
2009/9/16 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net: I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should those votes be recast? who changed them? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-es] [dieterdre...@gmail.com: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition]
Hola Volvemos a las andadas sobre si se debe catalogar la vía por la importancia en la red o por las características de la misma. Interesantes los comentarios que muestran que en casi toda Europa se viene empleando la catalogación segun la red. - Forwarded message from Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com - From: Martin Koppenhoefer Subject: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:46:16 +0200 The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for highway-definition here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance I suggest to not delete already given votes as they still represent voter's opinion, even if voting wasn't officially opened. cheers, Martin - End forwarded message - -- Celso González (PerroVerd) http://mitago.net ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
[OSM-talk] [voting] geological=palaeontological_site
Deal all, voting is opened: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/geological=palaeontolog ical_site Best regards Marcello B. Proposal-RFC Start: 2009-08-12 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-August/040238.html Vote-Start: 2009-08-27 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [voting] historic=paleontological_site
Deal all, voting is opened: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/paleontological_site Best regards Marcello B. - ( proposed: Sun Jul 19 ) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038714.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities
Hi all, I'm trying to get a definative answer for all the tags. So far so good. :-) it looks like its unanaimous that the 'canvec:description' tags get removed. So thats cool, its not that hard to remove those tags. :) Any comments about the other tags, why they should be removed or kept? Im sure many tags CAN be removed, we just need to clearly post on the wiki why. Im now adjusting the script so that all the tags get stored gzipped in a folder, so it can be used if needed as a backup. Thanks, Sam On 6/19/09, Tyler tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote: Out of the Buildings and structures page, yes, there is however more useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM too, beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities page. Yes, what Andrzej (how is that pronounced?) said. Though I would also include the Attribute code on the buildings and structures page (and equivalent codes elsewhere). With just a canvec:attribcode= that could then be referenced to a database of features So the original CODE would be good for reference and does not introduce redundancy in the data. However, converting it to 4 different tags in osm does add redundancy. Agreed, same essential reasoning as above. It's not really that difficult to pull together multiple data sources if you can easily cross reference datasets. There aren't tags in the database like 'building_desc=a man-made structure used for housing people and objects' for good reason: they aren't necessary and it can be cross-referenced. Information such as the year and technique of acquisition (VALDATE, AQTECH) is what the source= tag is sometimes used for in OSM. I'd even include the CanVec code (CODE) because the mapping from one tagset to another... Agreed, with reservations. There's no reason to lose information, but is that information encoded in anything else already like the object code or source?. To me canvec:Theme seems especially redundant (with the exception of water saturated soils) if there were a translation rule that was followed to go from canvec:Theme to standard OSM key:value pairs then it's unnecessary and redundant and no data is lost in the transition (you could always go back and re-create the canvec theme). Finally, if we don't want the extra information that is clearly in canvec (and other data sources) with no OSM analogues I feel there are two ways to resolve it. 1. Make appropriate OSM tags and include it 2. Fork OSM to a project that does want to include as much data as possible And no one likes forks. -Tyler -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities
Cool :) (I cc'd OSGeo NRCan, so their in the loop too.) Decisions here means a addition or subtraction of about a Gig or so of data. So this is why i stopped uploading. Would have been nice to have heard more voices from the start, lol.. or maybe i wasn't listening .. lol I'm looking back at the charts. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Buildings_and_structures I've added a column for each attribute which is common to all entities. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities I've gone over each tag row to discuss each. Where we can use the talk page to discuss further. I set it up so that people can indicate if they 'approve' or 'dissaprove' of that particular row, and then id/stamp and the write why they chose that. Most of the 'pending' could be probably 'disapproved', however, i feel that we need to answer it more than just 'we dont like it', and the answer of the persentage of users is also vague. We need to ask ourselves. How do we see OpenStreetMap.org basemap look in 5 years from now? (OSM is still a little kid) ... kinda like Facebook. Will city planners be using OSM as the main database which lists all the city boundaries, and all 'official' information? ... Bus Transit planners, Train Schedual planners, .. etc.. If so, then the extra tags that i included initially are needed, just as we would expect the city planners to post their reference numbers and lot numbers to represent how surveyors mark data on a map. (CanVec would not have included those tags if they went of value to people). Do we want the National Power grid to become the defult one that everyone uses? When this import is done, we WILL have the national power grid imported, and available. But usefull? Do we want to make the OSM database engineer friendly? If so, we need to include all the tags. .. and ask engeneers.. Is the osm database friendly to you in your field? If our goal is to become the defult map, where Google even sees our map as valuable and uses our database licence and shows OSM as the defult basemap, as more and more people recognize the value of this map (ie. where Google can explain to Bus Companies how to merge the data to the OSM system). ... then we need to step it up a notch, and allow for more tags and more possable usages. (imagine the complete RoadMap) ... Canada will be that by the end of the year) ... where then looking for more to map. Ie. a map can get made of all of the data which was acquired at a specific date. Or by a specific technique. Once OSM is able to use the altitude and accuracy information from GPS Tracks, this information can become more valuable. In JOSM its possable to be merging and copying item tags, perhaps expand on that ability? There isn't a limit of the number of tags provided we see it as 'useful'. So we here need to explain how we define 'useful' for a database in 5 years from now. So anyway, look forward to more discussions. Play nice :) Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities
In my opinion, the only data that should be imported as tags on geographic features in the OSM database is the data in the OSM Tags column on the Buildings and structures page. The other columns of data should not be included as tags. - The data in the Canvec Feature column is a duplicate of the code (right? you determine the feature type based on that code) - The geometry type column is implied by how the data is structured in OSM - The Attribute Value column is a duplicate of the attribute code column. - The Attribute Description column does not belong in the OSM geographic database. If you want to design a metadata database for OSM, go ahead and stick this sort of information in there. In general, the metadata that describes what the values mean should not be stored in the same database as the geographic data. The shapefile format does this. There is a .shp file that stores the geographic data, an .xml file that stores the description of the attributes of that geographic data, and a .dbf file that holds the values of the attributes for that geographic data. The OSM database is the geographic database and the values of attributes for that geographic data. The description of the attributes does not belong in the same location. On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: Cool :) (I cc'd OSGeo NRCan, so their in the loop too.) Decisions here means a addition or subtraction of about a Gig or so of data. So this is why i stopped uploading. Would have been nice to have heard more voices from the start, lol.. or maybe i wasn't listening .. lol I'm looking back at the charts. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Buildings_and_structures I've added a column for each attribute which is common to all entities. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities I've gone over each tag row to discuss each. Where we can use the talk page to discuss further. I set it up so that people can indicate if they 'approve' or 'dissaprove' of that particular row, and then id/stamp and the write why they chose that. Most of the 'pending' could be probably 'disapproved', however, i feel that we need to answer it more than just 'we dont like it', and the answer of the persentage of users is also vague. We need to ask ourselves. How do we see OpenStreetMap.org basemap look in 5 years from now? (OSM is still a little kid) ... kinda like Facebook. Will city planners be using OSM as the main database which lists all the city boundaries, and all 'official' information? ... Bus Transit planners, Train Schedual planners, .. etc.. If so, then the extra tags that i included initially are needed, just as we would expect the city planners to post their reference numbers and lot numbers to represent how surveyors mark data on a map. (CanVec would not have included those tags if they went of value to people). Do we want the National Power grid to become the defult one that everyone uses? When this import is done, we WILL have the national power grid imported, and available. But usefull? Do we want to make the OSM database engineer friendly? If so, we need to include all the tags. .. and ask engeneers.. Is the osm database friendly to you in your field? If our goal is to become the defult map, where Google even sees our map as valuable and uses our database licence and shows OSM as the defult basemap, as more and more people recognize the value of this map (ie. where Google can explain to Bus Companies how to merge the data to the OSM system). ... then we need to step it up a notch, and allow for more tags and more possable usages. (imagine the complete RoadMap) ... Canada will be that by the end of the year) ... where then looking for more to map. Ie. a map can get made of all of the data which was acquired at a specific date. Or by a specific technique. Once OSM is able to use the altitude and accuracy information from GPS Tracks, this information can become more valuable. In JOSM its possable to be merging and copying item tags, perhaps expand on that ability? There isn't a limit of the number of tags provided we see it as 'useful'. So we here need to explain how we define 'useful' for a database in 5 years from now. So anyway, look forward to more discussions. Play nice :) Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails ___ 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] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities
2009/6/20 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com: In my opinion, the only data that should be imported as tags on geographic features in the OSM database is the data in the OSM Tags column on the Buildings and structures page. The other columns of data should not be included as tags. Out of the Buildings and structures page, yes, there is however more useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM too, beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities page. Information such as the year and technique of acquisition (VALDATE, AQTECH) is what the source= tag is sometimes used for in OSM. I'd even include the CanVec code (CODE) because the mapping from one tagset to another (i.e. what the Buildings and structures chart attempts to do) is never unambiguous, it's like a conversion from fixed-point to floating-point representation (it introduces rounding errors) or a translation from french to english (lost in translation?). So the original CODE would be good for reference and does not introduce redundancy in the data. However, converting it to 4 different tags in osm does add redundancy. I also need to relate to Sam's argument that in the future people may demand that the data in the database be more readable and self-explanatory. I think you wrongly think that the bus / train route and schedule planners will be looking at the raw data from the database, I think that's a flawed assumption. If they even get near OSM it will be only through a specialised editor that will convert human readable (pretty icons, buttons etc) into machine readable and back (OSM tags). The user never gets to see the OSM tags, so there's no point making them self-explanatory. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities
Out of the Buildings and structures page, yes, there is however more useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM too, beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities page. Yes, what Andrzej (how is that pronounced?) said. Though I would also include the Attribute code on the buildings and structures page (and equivalent codes elsewhere). With just a canvec:attribcode= that could then be referenced to a database of features So the original CODE would be good for reference and does not introduce redundancy in the data. However, converting it to 4 different tags in osm does add redundancy. Agreed, same essential reasoning as above. It's not really that difficult to pull together multiple data sources if you can easily cross reference datasets. There aren't tags in the database like 'building_desc=a man-made structure used for housing people and objects' for good reason: they aren't necessary and it can be cross-referenced. Information such as the year and technique of acquisition (VALDATE, AQTECH) is what the source= tag is sometimes used for in OSM. I'd even include the CanVec code (CODE) because the mapping from one tagset to another... Agreed, with reservations. There's no reason to lose information, but is that information encoded in anything else already like the object code or source?. To me canvec:Theme seems especially redundant (with the exception of water saturated soils) if there were a translation rule that was followed to go from canvec:Theme to standard OSM key:value pairs then it's unnecessary and redundant and no data is lost in the transition (you could always go back and re-create the canvec theme). Finally, if we don't want the extra information that is clearly in canvec (and other data sources) with no OSM analogues I feel there are two ways to resolve it. 1. Make appropriate OSM tags and include it 2. Fork OSM to a project that does want to include as much data as possible And no one likes forks. -Tyler ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Voting] mtb:scale, a tag a bit like sac_scale for mountain bike trail difficulty
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale The voting period is rather long : 3 month, so please take you time. But I think that's what we lack all the time. Every month i'll give a sumary here of late changes (if any) and the ongoing vote result. As the current dictator of this democracy page, I will allow unilateraly any one to remove my status of dictator whenever he wants and to revert is vote whenever he wants (it seams obvious, but it isn't mentionned anywhere ) -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Voting] Re-opening the smoothness vote page ?
For a bit of history, I have opened the smoothness voting windows for a 3 month period from 2008-09-20 to 2008-12-20 Because I thought, as pieren also privatly suggested me, that voting and RFC are just too short perioded So, in my mind and thought I overcome usual 1 month period with a trade off of 3 month. ( I would have gone for 6 if that was only me ) After around 1 month, some one unilateraly decided to approved this feature because many yes where allready there and that nothing will change. I remove his changed arguing that yes are not a suffisent value on their own, a very good coming (argumented !!) opposition will make me revert my vote, yeah ! even on my own proposal. I've allready done that. But because I faced opposition of my opposition, I revert my changes and made it approved At that right moment, a mail of needed help on that list would have been a good idea from me. BUT !!! All this is not finished, I start remembering the book World in Eighty Days, until last ultimate limit, not every thing is done. The original ending period is 2008-12-20, that leaves 24 days for other arguments until now. I doubt that will end in a Refused proposal, but good comment are still welcome, things might still change, and less subjectives idea are welcome -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting on enforcement (traffic law enforcement)
Can people please have a look at this proposal and vote please? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement This is modified after the previous proposal threw up comments about collionions with highway=traffic_signals last time. As for the Compass directions as well as way-ward directions... I expected some nodes to apply to directions rather than specific ways, and also for some nodes to not be on a way and have no specific area of effect (van commonly behind this bush here pointing north towards this motorway junction for example) enforcement_direction which is on a way and applies only to the way it's on would use the (proposed) along/opposite/both tags. Maybe that needs to be made more clear in the proposal? Anyway - Can people have a look and vote please! -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services www.yvts.co.uk 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
This is a voting request for traffic_enforcement (as no-one seems to know about it?) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can have it approved - I for one would find it invaluable. Such an item is already available as paid-for POI sets for TomTom and other SatNavs, and on public maps like the AA street map and, most other paper roadmaps in the uk (but not ordnance survey). Thanks! -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services www.yvts.co.uk 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
Hi, On 17.10.2008, at 13:46, Tristan Scott wrote: I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can have it approved - I for one would find it invaluable. Then don't wait - just use it. If there is *anything* you find invaluable, don't wait for others to say they find it too (or not). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would be a better scheme to use traffic_enforcement=speed instead of both highway=traffic_enforcement AND enforcement_type=speed Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to help. What's the correct procedure now to change this sort of thing? Do we need to stop this proposal, construct a new one and RFC it before voting again (in a month's time!) Or could we, for example, clear the votes, modify the proposal and request votes again? Or, given this isn't my proposal, should I keep my nose out? :) It strikes me that good suggestions like this can't be handled by the vote system, and don't seem to get picked up at the RFC stage... so you end up knowing what the best solution is, yet approving something that isn't it. Tristan 2008/10/17 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, On 17.10.2008, at 13:46, Tristan Scott wrote: I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can have it approved - I for one would find it invaluable. Then don't wait - just use it. If there is *anything* you find invaluable, don't wait for others to say they find it too (or not). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services www.yvts.co.uk 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
- Original Message - From: Tristan Scott To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would be a better scheme to use traffic_enforcement=speed instead of both highway=traffic_enforcement AND enforcement_type=speed Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to help. What's the correct procedure now to change this sort of thing? Do we need to stop this proposal, construct a new one and RFC it before voting again (in a month's time!) Or could we, for example, clear the votes, modify the proposal and request votes again? Or, given this isn't my proposal, should I keep my nose out? :) It strikes me that good suggestions like this can't be handled by the vote system, and don't seem to get picked up at the RFC stage... so you end up knowing what the best solution is, yet approving something that isn't it. Tristan I'm all for clearing the votes, rewriting the proposal, and then voting on the new proposal in say a week. All except one of the votes was made today, presumably in response to your earlier posting, so it might be safe to assume that those who have already approved the tagging read this mailing list and will see the proposal is being changed. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
righto; votes cleared. proposal modified. new vote set in a week's time. I'm not keen on the enforcement direction being forwards and backwards. I can think of examples: * Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation to the direction of enforcement * On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways cross, in which case forwards and backwards are meaningless (two or more ways share the node) * Off a carriageway on a node covering one or more ways (where direction is important but not given by a way) ...so I'm going to leave that as-is Plus direction I've got in mind as a data_type (see maxspeed thread on the mailing list, and also my comments on waypoints with directions) so it would be good to be more generic. Tristan 2008/10/17 David Groom [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Tristan Scott To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would be a better scheme to use traffic_enforcement=speed instead of both highway=traffic_enforcement AND enforcement_type=speed Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to help. What's the correct procedure now to change this sort of thing? Do we need to stop this proposal, construct a new one and RFC it before voting again (in a month's time!) Or could we, for example, clear the votes, modify the proposal and request votes again? Or, given this isn't my proposal, should I keep my nose out? :) It strikes me that good suggestions like this can't be handled by the vote system, and don't seem to get picked up at the RFC stage... so you end up knowing what the best solution is, yet approving something that isn't it. Tristan I'm all for clearing the votes, rewriting the proposal, and then voting on the new proposal in say a week. All except one of the votes was made today, presumably in response to your earlier posting, so it might be safe to assume that those who have already approved the tagging read this mailing list and will see the proposal is being changed. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services www.yvts.co.uk 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 06:40:12PM +0100, Tristan Scott wrote: * Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation to the direction of enforcement In that case, a relation (no pun intended) would be better. * On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways cross, in which case forwards and backwards are meaningless (two or more ways share the node) Seems to be similar to a turn restriction = copy from there. * Off a carriageway on a node covering one or more ways (where direction is important but not given by a way) Yet another argument for using a relation. ;) CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
On Friday 17 October 2008, Tristan Scott wrote: righto; votes cleared. proposal modified. new vote set in a week's time. I'm not keen on the enforcement direction being forwards and backwards. I can think of examples: * Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation to the direction of enforcement I thought one would tag nodes on the highway where it's enforced, not the location of the devices themselves? I don't think it's easy to unambiguously make the connection of a speed camera on top of a bridge (which would then be tagged as a node of the bridge I guess?) with the highway below where the speed is enforced? * On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways cross, in which case forwards and backwards are meaningless (two or more ways share the node) But so would N/E/S/W be if two roads cross at sharp angles and both roads would be in the N sector for example. A third method is needed... * Off a carriageway on a node covering one or more ways (where direction is important but not given by a way) Haven't seen any cases where the same camera covers both directions of a dual carriageway, but if it happens somewhere, why not just add two nodes on each side? Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
Haven't seen any cases where the same camera covers both directions of a dual carriageway, but if it happens somewhere, why not just add two nodes on each side? How about those cases where the camera is between the carriageways and gets swung around to cover opposite sides at irregular intervals? I guess one node to indicate the speed camera and then somehow two directions of coverage, perhaps with a note that it is only one or the other at any given time. Although the ones I'm thinking of on the A14 have been replaced by different types, I think I've seen them elsewhere in the West Midlands. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process (was: Re: Map Features, maxspeed and maplint)
[...] By all means keep the proposal and RFC parts, and maybe back them up with TagWatch links. +1 Regards, Marc -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting process (was: Re: Map Features, maxspeed and maplint)
Shaun McDonald schrieb: In my opinion the voting process is broken, as it can potentially vote in proposals that will break backwards compatibility and require extensively more complex processing of the data. Take for example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Status Yes, proposals can break backwards compatiblity. I do not believe this is a bad thing at all – if a new concept is better than an old one, then maintaining b.c. is the last thing I want, especially in a project with as random and insufficient “standards” as ours. That is not to say that b.c. isn't desirable, but it should by no means be required for new ideas. Moreover, the possibility to break b.c. is not limited to proposals – the competing concepts of “just add it to the wiki” and “just use it” can break b.c. as well, if not easier. I readily admit that voting has its flaws. Looking at the quoted proposal, you'll find that two of those who voted against it (Nibblenibble and Basemonkey) have only a single contribution in the wiki – the vote –[1], have created their accounts the same day they voted[2] and have cast their votes within 30 minutes from each other. Also, at the time of this writing, no OSM accounts exist whose names correspond to these wiki accounts. The two still might be legit voters (and when in doubt, it's probably fair to assume they are), but it's impossible to tell. But even this doesn't mean that voting is useless. The RFC+voting serves as a way to initiate discussion, collect ideas and encourage sufficient documentation. We are not talking about legally binding decisions here, it's just a tool for these purposes. And if someone has better tools to offer, I will prefer these, of course. It's just that this hasn't happened yet. Tordanik [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Nibblenibble http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Basemonkey [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special:Loguser=Nibblenibble http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special:Loguser=Nibblenibble ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process (was: Re: Map Features, maxspeed and maplint)
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Tordanik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shaun McDonald schrieb: In my opinion the voting process is broken, as it can potentially vote in proposals that will break backwards compatibility and require extensively more complex processing of the data. Take for example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Status Yes, proposals can break backwards compatiblity. I do not believe this is a bad thing at all – if a new concept is better than an old one, then maintaining b.c. is the last thing I want, especially in a project with as random and insufficient standards as ours. That is not to say that b.c. isn't desirable, but it should by no means be required for new ideas. Moreover, the possibility to break b.c. is not limited to proposals – the competing concepts of just add it to the wiki and just use it can break b.c. as well, if not easier. Quite true. But the voting process lends a degree of legitimacy and officialness (where neither really exists) to the uninitiated masses (and some of the deluded too). That proposal is quite interesting for several reasons, but mostly because it's so close, and yet the voting reasons are so varied. One voter recently voted against it because they didn't like the key name, compared to lots of people opposing because of the way it breaks things. Most people supporting it want it because they want a way to say something is under construction or similar, and don't seem to have really considered whether it's the best way at all. There's several comments about improving/degrading rendering performance, which frankly is a laughable argument either way as it'll make negligible impact. Then there's the rather nebulous scalability argument: apparently it's scalable, or it's not scalable, I haven't really figured out what this actually means in the context except that people are very insistent that it is/isn't. Anyway, should the vote pass by 1 or two votes, some wiki-person will promote it to map features where all the discussion will be gone. I'll almost certainly add a section to it's description to discourage it's use, which will almost certainly be removed by someone else claiming this is not the place for discussion and that it's an approved feature don't you know. Meanwhile the a few of the front page renderings, most of the routing engines and a pile of other tools you've never heard of will continue to simply ignore it. Just like they ignore the disused tag which has all the same problems and I wasn't even aware existed (hence why it is such a big problem). So while breaking backwards compatibility is not always a bad thing, I think you do need a _real_ consensus that it's a Good Thing before you go away and tell everyone to do it. I readily admit that voting has its flaws. Looking at the quoted proposal, you'll find that two of those who voted against it (Nibblenibble and Basemonkey) have only a single contribution in the wiki – the vote –[1], have created their accounts the same day they voted[2] and have cast their votes within 30 minutes from each other. Also, at the time of this writing, no OSM accounts exist whose names correspond to these wiki accounts. The two still might be legit voters (and when in doubt, it's probably fair to assume they are), but it's impossible to tell. But even this doesn't mean that voting is useless. The RFC+voting serves as a way to initiate discussion, collect ideas and encourage sufficient documentation. We are not talking about legally binding decisions here, it's just a tool for these purposes. And if someone has better tools to offer, I will prefer these, of course. It's just that this hasn't happened yet. I'll grant you that the RFC does initiate discussion. And that voting certainly causes a discussion frenzy on the more controversial items. Beyond that though I'm not sure what it is trying to achieve. The effect is approval or disapproval which actually means very little except as a large stick to beat anybody who disagrees with the result when they try to create/edit pages documenting actual usage on the wiki. It's given people the idea there's such a thing as deprecation too. Some better tools would be awesome, but you're right, they don't exist so we currently have the choice of voting or nothing, and personally I'd prefer nothing. By all means keep the proposal and RFC parts, and maybe back them up with TagWatch links. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting on platform (railway and bus)started
As there are no new commends in the RFC for a while, I just started the voting on the platform tag. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/platform Thorsten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting started on the vending machine proposal
Voting started on the vending machine proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/vending_machine). Please do not hesitate to give you vote ! Thorsten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting has started
Hello everyone, After 1 1/2 month of discussion about tagging the voting for k=highway| v=emergency_access_point has started. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Emergency_access_point#Vote wer-ist-roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting Proposed features/Surveillance?
Hello, I was looking for a way to tag surveillance cameras in my city. On the German mailing list someone pointed me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Surveillance a proposal made in December 2006 which didnt make it to the voting process. Among the suggestions given in the discussion were the use a special layer and the restriction to nodes which I would support both. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features#Proposed_Features_-_Man_made has an entry for the tag, already. What do I have to do to start the vote? Regards Jens Herrmann ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote: Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime Minister. Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence of parliament. There's nothing other than constitutional convention to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not, and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention seems quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect, which was kind of Steve's point. But anyway. Both e-mails are evidence of why charging people for completely pointless posts that don't actually do anything for the point under discussion is probably a good idea :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Frederik Ramm wrote: Sent: 08 April 2008 2:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OSM-Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting Sven, I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that. Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make a decision that is a decision of the project rather than a decision of those five people who voted. I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my suggestion: * Continue your discussion and voting as before * Give yourselves a name (OSM Tagging Task Force or whatever) and create a mailing list. * Do not talk about approved, rejected, or deprecated features; instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a recommended by OSMTTF feature. * Be very clear that any feature *not* voted upon, or any feature which got less votes than something else, or any feature that a majority of voters didn't like, is still perfectly valid to use - you just don't actively recommend it. * Never try to keep people from using tags you didn't recommend (i.e. do not add a big message to the Wiki saying THIS FEATURE IS NOT RECOMMENDED!). * Be very clear that the group you form is a small subset of the project; you create recommendations based on today's knowledge and on what you like and dislike. There may be any number of *other* groups in the project who also create recommendations and who have the same right to exist that you have. You are not special, the project has not asked you to please give recommendations, and has not given you any special powers that others don't have. (Much as the project never asks anyone to please write software and be the project's premier software contributor - anyone can do it and if it proves to be good, it is used.) * Be very clear that your recommendations create no obligations whatsoever on the part of renderers and editors; your tags are not better or more important than anyone else's. Do all this and I will stop complaining. I might even actively refer people to you (better talk this over with the guys on the tagging task force list, they usually have good ideas or so). Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do? I'll draw a parallel to the licensing debate here. Over on legal-talk, I constantly advocate PD, saying that nothing can ever be more free than PD because it has no restrictions. I am then routinely criticised by share-alike advocates who say that the freedom of PD might be abused by people further down the line to actually *reduce* freedom. In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from. Bye Frederik I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most know that I'm an advocate of the let it evolve approach. SteveC pointed me last night to this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0 If you haven't seen it already its principally discussing the arguments and issues surrounding wikipedia and whether it can stand for truth or not. OSM basically has the same dilemma. There will always be those that think the prescribed approach, and this applies beyond tags too, is the only way the project will be considered authoritative and therefore in the longer term useful/successful. I don't hold this view, and this is why. Like another poster I too use international standards in my life as an engineer. But daily I come across poorly conceived standards and differences in interpretation, usage and supposedly equivalent standards in different jurisdictions. I also see standards having to change with time and that these changes don't usually keep pace with technological developments or new research and best practice. The final minute of the above video for me is the important point. An expert, whether it is on tags or anything else, has a high degree of knowledge about the subject, but that is not the only knowledge. Any knowledge, whether from an expert of not is knowledge gained about the subject and has relevance. This is why I think the original wikipedia approach was fine, provided that it would never be considered authoritative. If you want an authoritative version, in the same way that the Encyclopaedia Britannica or OED might be considered authoritative, then fine, make your rules and produce your work to standards, each individual then has the option to consider these alongside any other sources of information when making a decision or taking a view about something. If we turn
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:31:02AM +0100, Bruce Cowan wrote: On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote: Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? I'm a pedant [...] Oh, if we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that the British convention is that he's The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown or Mr Brown or Prime Minister (as in, Yes, Prime Minister), but not any variation on the American Prime Minister Brown or Mr Prime Minister formats. Sorry, off topic and I managed to resist for a couple of days, but it's just one of those niggly things. And as for Chef Ramsey, he can f*** right off. s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/4/9 Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]: maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote: Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime Minister. Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence of parliament. There's nothing other than constitutional convention to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not, and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention seems quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect, which was kind of Steve's point. well, if we're being really, really pedantic, then i wasn't talking about that government, but the one here (nz), where there are no damn monarchs choosing leaders, [...] really? wikipedia isn't so convinced: 'The post of Prime Minister is, like other ministerial positions, an appointment by the Governor-General during the Queen's pleasure' [1] Convention means this isn't really true, as it does in the UK. Quite what happens if you break convention I don't know. Probably a Constitutional Crisis. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_New_Zealand ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: snip I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my suggestion: * Continue your discussion and voting as before * Give yourselves a name (OSM Tagging Task Force or whatever) and create a mailing list. * Do not talk about approved, rejected, or deprecated features; instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a recommended by OSMTTF feature. snip I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most know that I'm an advocate of the let it evolve approach. more snipping... As a OSM Newbie, this seems like one of those old timer arguments you see in the back of the pub, where everyone involved knows their point of view, and everyone elese point of view, and knows no-one will change, but discusses anyway for old time sake. Normally I stay away from those discussions, but this time I'll wade in (to knowing glances between the old timers, I'm sure...) I like the way that new tags can be written up on the wiki, and then any users can show their feelings on them. I think it's quite clear from the wiki that you don't have to use 'approved' tags, or that the approval is set in stone (it's a wiki after all), but I think it helps new user to see how new tags are being thought of by everyone, and for people with an idea to document their idea and show it to the world. Without something like this you will get fifty different types of subtly different tags. I see the proposal / voting / approval process as something to do with the documentation on the wiki, and not nessarily to do with the map. Maybe what's required is getting more users to look at the proposals and give their opinion (maybe putting the latest proposal thats being voted on on the front page ?) Just my two penneth, Paul. -- Paul Hurley http://www.paulhurley.co.uk/ The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On 09/04/2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most know that I'm an advocate of the let it evolve approach. me too. it should evolve - but settling on agreed ways of doing things does not prevent evolution SteveC pointed me last night to this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0 If you haven't seen it already its principally discussing the arguments and issues surrounding wikipedia and whether it can stand for truth or not. there is no truth. only commonly agreed upon values. this can be applied to society, wikipedia or osm, any group of individuals with a common aim OSM basically has the same dilemma. There will always be those that think the prescribed approach, and this applies beyond tags too, is the only way the project will be considered authoritative and therefore in the longer term useful/successful. I don't hold this view, and this is why. prescribed != non-evolving Like another poster I too use international standards in my life as an engineer. But daily I come across poorly conceived standards and differences in interpretation, usage and supposedly equivalent standards in different jurisdictions. I also see standards having to change with time and that these changes don't usually keep pace with technological developments or new research and best practice. that isn't a failing of standards per se, though, only with their implementation. some engineers are lazy and can't be bothered reading how the standard should work (by the way, another engineer here), but that doesn't mean the standard has no value i use standards every day too, and plenty of them change every few years. why don't they change more? well, the standards committees have to meet, which costs money (which isn't available), work has to be done researching methods (which is expensive and time-consuming). as a result, standards committees appear slow to move and out of touch we have a wiki, and everyone can cheaply get together and investigate/discuss if a new process is useful or not, so we can update the 'standard' every day if need be. and we do. every day there is an active discussion/vote to add, change and remove tags. how is this non-evolving? The final minute of the above video for me is the important point. An expert, whether it is on tags or anything else, has a high degree of knowledge about the subject, but that is not the only knowledge. Any knowledge, whether from an expert of not is knowledge gained about the subject and has relevance. This is why I think the original wikipedia absolutely. there is no barrier to joining a discussion. no-one looking at a tag discussion with a good idea would think ulf, alex, me or anyone had some higher power. we're very careful on this, and are aware and promote that every opinion is as valued as another. has anyone ever said i've been doing this for x months, i know more than you, your opinion is worhtless? not that i can see approach was fine, provided that it would never be considered authoritative. If you want an authoritative version, in the same way that the Encyclopaedia Britannica or OED might be considered authoritative, then fine, make your rules and produce your work to standards, each individual then has the option to consider these alongside any other sources of information when making a decision or taking a view about something. If we turn this point to OSM we can see that if the community pools its ideas on a point, tags in this instance, then we reach through discussion on the lists/IRC wiki etc a level of general consensus about a tag, it is immaterial whether the consensus reached is right or wrong in the wider context. It's what the community feels is appropriate at the time. The problem comes along only if a subset of the community decide to approve the consensus and cast it in stone as an immovable statement. Doing so stops further revision of the community consensus, and thus in my view makes it less authoritative with time. no it doesn't - anyone can propose changing a tag at a later date. e.g. i put forward a proposal to merge cemeteries and graveyards, someone explained why they were different (showing good sources to back up their argument), and i retracted it. there is also a proposal in place to delete sport=football which will probably go through. when it was created it made sense, now it doesn't - a prime example of evolution voting by itself does not give me any confidence that the tags are 'approved' or useful or whatever. but people use them, a lot, which gives me confidence that they see value in the tags, and thus how they are created i don't know the exact numbers, but having looked through tagwatch, most items are tagged with things in map_features. why would people use them if they had no value? this tells me we're doing something right. maybe the people who use them
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Frederik Ramm schrieb: But honestly, how can you ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in the project can have any authority? I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that. I also can't remember that anyone in this discussion has given any reason or example where the voting-process could harm the OSM-project. On the contrary, there are many Newbies who are thankful there's ONE tagging-sheme for one feature instead of several contrary opinions on what could be bad and good. Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do? regards, Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Sven, I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that. Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make a decision that is a decision of the project rather than a decision of those five people who voted. I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my suggestion: * Continue your discussion and voting as before * Give yourselves a name (OSM Tagging Task Force or whatever) and create a mailing list. * Do not talk about approved, rejected, or deprecated features; instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a recommended by OSMTTF feature. * Be very clear that any feature *not* voted upon, or any feature which got less votes than something else, or any feature that a majority of voters didn't like, is still perfectly valid to use - you just don't actively recommend it. * Never try to keep people from using tags you didn't recommend (i.e. do not add a big message to the Wiki saying THIS FEATURE IS NOT RECOMMENDED!). * Be very clear that the group you form is a small subset of the project; you create recommendations based on today's knowledge and on what you like and dislike. There may be any number of *other* groups in the project who also create recommendations and who have the same right to exist that you have. You are not special, the project has not asked you to please give recommendations, and has not given you any special powers that others don't have. (Much as the project never asks anyone to please write software and be the project's premier software contributor - anyone can do it and if it proves to be good, it is used.) * Be very clear that your recommendations create no obligations whatsoever on the part of renderers and editors; your tags are not better or more important than anyone else's. Do all this and I will stop complaining. I might even actively refer people to you (better talk this over with the guys on the tagging task force list, they usually have good ideas or so). Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do? I'll draw a parallel to the licensing debate here. Over on legal-talk, I constantly advocate PD, saying that nothing can ever be more free than PD because it has no restrictions. I am then routinely criticised by share-alike advocates who say that the freedom of PD might be abused by people further down the line to actually *reduce* freedom. In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Frederik Ramm schrieb: I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my suggestion: * [...] Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't. While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force it's no good idea I believe. That would inevitably become a closed group at that others would point their fingers saying It's all their fault. In contrast our current system is truly open: Anybody can drop by in the wiki write one or two lines to a proposal and leave again. In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from. Naturally I can only speak for myself but I'm almost certain this applies to others as well: I don't want to allow or disallow anything! When I spent time with proposals I consider that a service to others. Those others are free to chose wether they want to use my service of neatly structured and described tags or not. I'm a mechanical engineer and see on a daily basis how industrial norms like ISO, DIN, etc. make things easier by allowing you to concentrate on your core business rather than worrying if other people will now what I mean by a M6x40 bolt. Take ISO 5457 for example: You are free to use whatever paperformat you like but isn't it also comfortable to walk into any shop and ask for DIN A4 paper sheets, that every printer and every desktop application will know what you mean without the need to say that it's a piece of paper with the dimensions 210x297mm? Even when there are several competing norms that's fine as long each one clearly defines it's meaning and one knows which one applies. There are of course laws and alike which enforce people to meet such norms but it's false to blame the resulting hassle on those who created the norm. So we should try to scatter the illusion that tags as they can be found in the wiki are obligatory in any kind. I'll be glad to do so when you point me to such places. regards, Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Sven Grüner wrote: Frederik Ramm schrieb: I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my suggestion: * [...] Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't. While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force it's no good idea I believe. That would inevitably become a closed group at that others would point their fingers saying It's all their fault. In contrast our current system is truly open: Anybody can drop by in the wiki write one or two lines to a proposal and leave again. In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from. Naturally I can only speak for myself but I'm almost certain this applies to others as well: I don't want to allow or disallow anything! When I spent time with proposals I consider that a service to others. Those others are free to chose wether they want to use my service of neatly structured and described tags or not. I'm a mechanical engineer and see on a daily basis how industrial norms like ISO, DIN, etc. make things easier by allowing you to concentrate on your core business rather than worrying if other people will now what I mean by a M6x40 bolt. Take ISO 5457 for example: You are free to use whatever paperformat you like but isn't it also comfortable to walk into any shop and ask for DIN A4 paper sheets, that every printer and every desktop application will know what you mean without the need to say that it's a piece of paper with the dimensions 210x297mm? Even when there are several competing norms that's fine as long each one clearly defines it's meaning and one knows which one applies. There are of course laws and alike which enforce people to meet such norms but it's false to blame the resulting hassle on those who created the norm. So we should try to scatter the illusion that tags as they can be found in the wiki are obligatory in any kind. I'll be glad to do so when you point me to such places. regards, Sven +1 Paul. -- Paul Hurley http://www.paulhurley.co.uk/ The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote: Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime Minister. -- Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several times. This is not the first time you use the word sabotage in this context. I think it's rather strong language; I have openly expressed my opinion that's all. I just use the wording that I think is appropriate for an IMHO absurd discussion. Did you noticed the side effect, that most of the discussion about the proposals almost stopped completely No I haven't noticed. Hmmm, because you don't seem to care/know what's happening in that area? I guess it's because summer's coming and people are out mapping. sabotaging an actually working voting process to more or less quickly find decisions about how to improve stuff Well I think what may have happened is that I shattered an illusion. It is just possible that people participating in the voting process were under the impression that their decisions are somehow more than recommendations, that they divide the OSM world into approved and not approved stuff and that they define what people will use or not use. I'm sorry, but this is YOUR illusion, not my point of view (and as far as I can tell none of the other voting participants). Maybe beside that the map features page in fact defines a lot how people actually map things (to the limit that this page still lacks a lot of stuff). I said that this is not the case, and maybe this has reduced motivation to participate in the process. But honestly, how can you ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in the project can have any authority? Well, all those mappers who don't use the opportunity to present, discuss and defend their views here will simply have to live with our decision? Come on! Again, your expressing an illusion that you have about the voting process that just doesn't fit with reality. You obviously don't follow the dynamics of the proposal and voting stuff, but opposing it maybe because you just missinterpreting stuff and don't like the wording. The whole voting - at least to me - is: let's find a reasonable solution for this open point, so we can move on to the next. This has a lot more to do with rough consensus and running code than you seem to think. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting
Hi, stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite? Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote: 2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite? Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
...or as Ken Livingstone said: If voting changed anything they'd abolish it. On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:57 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote: 2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite? Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several times. Did you noticed the side effect, that most of the discussion about the proposals almost stopped completely - leading up to almost NO IMPROVEMENTS to the mess of proposals we have. This will certainly help everyone a lot, thank you! Just ignoring the current mess we have in the map features caused in the years past (e.g. no one seemed to care about documenting the features - leading to a LOT OF confusion), sabotaging an actually working voting process to more or less quickly find decisions about how to improve stuff and NOT providing a better way of improving the current situation is, well, strange. You're queueing up to the long list of people just telling us how to not do things, but you also know that we already have enough of those people ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting closed/proposal rejected - hov access
voting has been open on this for 4 weeks. it has now closed, with 4 yes votes, and 1 no vote - the proposal was rejected http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/hov_access it will be moved to the rejected features page thanks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [voting] shop=laundry
Hi! The corresponding RFC is now more than two weeks ago, with no substantial problems shown up (since it was updated 2007-12-31). Voting is opened for the next two weeks at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Laundry Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting open - power_plant
this has been around for 8 months now, time to open voting http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Power_plants this proposal has two parts: to create the new power=power_plants tag and make the old man_made=nuclear_power, man_made=solar_power, etc. obsolete thanks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using it for all places in my area for some time now - over 100 villages in South Cambridgeshire are tagged. I suspect I not the only one. I am tempted to say this is a de facto map feature and add it to the list anyway. I think this is information that is usefully in the map data not as a source of background information (where it would be more appropriately linked to) but because it can inform map rendering - remember the discussion we had recently (thread starts at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-November/020261.html ) about what constitutes villages, towns and cities - Bedford and Cambridge are much the same size, but one is a town; villages of a few thousand are treated the same as those of a few hundred and so on Renderers can adjust caption sizes or other symbols based on population if it wants to if the info is available. David On 16/01/2008 01:45, Robin Paulson wrote: does anyone know what's happening with this tag? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Population it appears to have been voted on, but it isn't really clear what, the tags were only added after voting had completed. i think it's rejected (11 yes to one no), but the last comment implies not. also, there are lots of questions in the comments that are unanswered. anyone? it wasn't announced on talk personally, i think this is a good candidate for data to include in wikipedia and link to with some sort of on-screen tag, as has been discussed recently ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-16 10:47, David Earl wrote:
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now
I do not see any description about the syntax within the proposal - and I
feel that a population has to be accompanied whenever possible by a valid
date.
Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a
place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data
primitive, such as data
tag k=place v=village
tag k=place_name v=SC-Village
data=12345
data=123444
...
data id=12345
tag k=population v=123
tag k=date v=2007-12-31
tag k=precision v=1
data id=123444
tag k=population v=100
tag k=date v=1990
tag k=precision v=10
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
but you won't know whether this number is outdated by a day, a month or
many years.
--
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
On Jan 16, 2008 11:19 AM, Martin Trautmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-16 10:47, David Earl wrote:
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now
I do not see any description about the syntax within the proposal - and I
feel that a population has to be accompanied whenever possible by a valid
date.
Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a
place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data
primitive, such as data
tag k=place v=village
tag k=place_name v=SC-Village
data=12345
data=123444
...
data id=12345
tag k=population v=123
tag k=date v=2007-12-31
tag k=precision v=1
data id=123444
tag k=population v=100
tag k=date v=1990
tag k=precision v=10
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
If you want to indicate precision, you can do so using scientific
notation (that's what it's there for, after all). So your examples
would be 1.23x10E2, 1.0x10E2 and so on. But I don't think many people
would care much about precision.
You should also consider relations. A relation type = population, with
an area as a member and all the tags you wish, could be added.
Separate relations for different dates would then work too.
Cheers,
Andy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
Martin Trautmann wrote:
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
but you won't know whether this number is outdated by a day, a month or
many years.
Both of these seem to be unnecessarily overcomplicating the issue.
We're not trying to become some sort of definitive source for population
data. And such data is fundamentally unsuited for this level of
precision anyway. Beyond the tiny village where everyone knows anyone
else, population counts are always estimates and out of date. In some
cities the range of values being thrown around span millions of people
(Lagos for example).
AIUI there is no proposal to be doing anything with this data other than
giving rendering hints. If so, then there's no real problem with either
out of date data or crude estimates. And, when better data is available,
it's trivial to change it.
Tony
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
Martin Trautmann wrote: I do not see any description about the syntax within the proposal - and I feel that a population has to be accompanied whenever possible by a valid date. Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data primitive, such as data Surely this argument would then apply to everything else in the database too? Yes, population changes over time, but roads also change, commercial and industrial zones change, railway lines change, new housing estates appear, etc. Currently we have data from npe mixing with up-to-the minute gps data. The only track we have is the last-edited time (I think?). In practice, things are still working ok. Yes, it might be nice to tag population or other db features with a date, but this would be a feature in itself, and wouldn't seem a good reason to reject the population tag. Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
On 16/01/2008 11:19, Martin Trautmann wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-16 10:47, David Earl wrote:
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now
I do not see any description about the syntax within the proposal -
Well, possibly, but as I said I wasn't aware of the proposal and had
just been doing it.
and I
feel that a population has to be accompanied whenever possible by a valid
date.
*has to be*? There's no 'has to be' about anything in OSM. It might be
desirable, but it
Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a
place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data
primitive, such as data
Nonsense.
population=1234
population_date=2001
would do fine.
tag k=place v=village
tag k=place_name v=SC-Village
data=12345
data=123444
...
data id=12345
tag k=population v=123
tag k=date v=2007-12-31
tag k=precision v=1
data id=123444
tag k=population v=100
tag k=date v=1990
tag k=precision v=10
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
but you won't know whether this number is outdated by a day, a month or
many years.
The same applies to all the data on the map, including post boxes, pub
names and so on. Even roads (especially roads known about but under
construction at the time of mapping).
David
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
Martin Trautmann schrieb: Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data primitive, such as data Why not KISS (keep it stupid simple)? Like David I've been using this on dozens of places just by instinct. Accuracy: The numbers I've put into OSM are what I would have said in personal conversation, like 260,000 instead of 263,814. When looking on a map stating the population (many German Topo-maps do so) I don't see why someone would want to know it down to the person. It's just to get an idea of the place. Being up-to-date: When rounding the numbers as shown above you're still quite close when the population changes to say 255,000. And even when ten years pass and it drops to 220,000 I (as map user) would not bother about the offset. But surely the tag would've been updated many times, remember that people here are even willing to tag construction sites. And BTW population changes on a daily basis and even the local administration won't know the exact figures with better that a few percent accuracy. So I will keep on tagging rounded population figures, because I consider them useful. regards, Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-17 01:23, Tony Bowden wrote:
Martin Trautmann wrote:
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
but you won't know whether this number is outdated by a day, a month or
many years.
Both of these seem to be unnecessarily overcomplicating the issue.
Yes, I agree. It sounds far too complicated.
Concerning KISS, someone should add some info to the proposal whether you
are aware that any numbers here are not for exact reference then, but just
for giving a possibly outdated and rough estimation of size.
AIUI there is no proposal to be doing anything with this data other than
giving rendering hints. If so, then there's no real problem with either
out of date data or crude estimates. And, when better data is available,
it's trivial to change it.
Is it a sufficient key for rendering?
Whether something got the status of a town or not may differ from country
to country.
In Germany, you may change the status from about 5000 inhabitants on
(small town, Kleinstadt: 5 000 .. 20 000). From 100 000 on it's called
Großstadt (city). In Switzerland it takes at least 10 000 inhabitants for a
town, in Austria
it may be as low as 4500. Once you got the status of a town, you might
keep it. There's a German town named Arnis, which got about 300
inhabitants only.
So maybe the number of inhabitants is the even better value for rendering
- but the result may be different than your expectation is.
- Martin
--
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting closed, proposal rejected - saltmarsh
this proposal has been open for voting for two weeks now. it has been rejected, with 6 no votes and 3 yes votes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Saltmarsh it will be moved to the rejected features page i will put together a new proposal for sub-keys to the 'marsh' tag, as per suggestions in the comments thanks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting open - railway=turntable
this has been open for comments for two weeks now, with no issues http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Turntable voting is now open, for two weeks thanks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting open for url= and
Already trying to avoid unneccesary mails I herewith inform you about open voting for two tags: Links to websites (url=) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Info_on_web-presence Official phonenumbers (phone=) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Phone Regards, Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting ended? - population
does anyone know what's happening with this tag? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Population it appears to have been voted on, but it isn't really clear what, the tags were only added after voting had completed. i think it's rejected (11 yes to one no), but the last comment implies not. also, there are lots of questions in the comments that are unanswered. anyone? it wasn't announced on talk personally, i think this is a good candidate for data to include in wikipedia and link to with some sort of on-screen tag, as has been discussed recently ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chill out guys, I'm merely pointing out an interesting anomaly with the current voting scheme. I don't particularly care if you change it or not. I am not having a go at you Robin, who are doing a terrific job. not at all, i didn't think you were - i took it all as useful debate ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Robin Paulson wrote: Sent: 14 January 2008 2:41 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool this proposal has been rejected, with 11 yes votes and 3 no votes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Swimming_pool it has been moved to the rejected features page it also appears to be a duplication of sport=swimming if there are some tags you would like to add to an existing tag (e.g. in this case indoor/outdoor), please propose a new tag for the existing key, rather than duplicating work that has already been done thanks I'll point out the obvious here. leisure=swimming_pool is the old way of doing things when we placed most objects like this under the amenity or leisure top level keys. Its more appropriate now to tag as building=swimming_pool and sport=swimming/diving/water_polo etc etc. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] voting open - crane
this has been proposed for 2 weeks now, with no disagreements, time to open voting http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/crane thanks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Brent Easton wrote: Interesting. If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting against a proposal once the first No vote is registered! Wow, somebody's reading the voting description completely wrong. 6 unanimous yes approve is an approval. Otherwise, once 15 votes are reached, the majority rules. This proposal still has only 14 votes, so voting should still be open. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Brent Easton wrote: Interesting. If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting against a proposal once the first No vote is registered! Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow, somebody's reading the voting description completely wrong. 6 unanimous yes approve is an approval. Otherwise, once 15 votes are reached, the majority rules. This is pretty much what Brent said. The proposal only needs one more No vote to succeed. Is there anyone out there who doesn't like the proposal, who can disapprove quickly? We can then move it to Map Features. Ian. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Ian Sergeant wrote: This is pretty much what Brent said. The proposal only needs one more No vote to succeed. Is there anyone out there who doesn't like the proposal, who can disapprove quickly? We can then move it to Map Features. Ian. No, Brent said ...it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. This is completely incorrect. And it needs only one vote, which can be yes or no. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting against a proposal once the first No vote is registered! i'll admit, the voting proposal scheme seems a bit odd, but some things are important in this partcular proposal: 1. voting was open for 8 months 2. the no votes pointed out that there were a lot fo unanswered points 3. it's a (sort of) duplicate of sport=swimming if it had solely been 11 yes votes and 3 no votes, i would have put it in the approved features page, but the proposal makes no sense at all, so that would be bad. there's no reason it can't be proposed again, coupled with making sport=swimming obsolete which would probably be best because it's such a muddled mess if you would like to change the voting numbers, there's no reason it can't be discussed, as with anything else on osm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
Chill out guys, I'm merely pointing out an interesting anomaly with the current voting scheme. I don't particularly care if you change it or not. I am not having a go at you Robin, who are doing a terrific job. Cheers, Brent. *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 14/01/2008 at 7:54 PM Robin Paulson wrote: On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it. In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting against a proposal once the first No vote is registered! i'll admit, the voting proposal scheme seems a bit odd, but some things are important in this partcular proposal: 1. voting was open for 8 months 2. the no votes pointed out that there were a lot fo unanswered points 3. it's a (sort of) duplicate of sport=swimming if it had solely been 11 yes votes and 3 no votes, i would have put it in the approved features page, but the proposal makes no sense at all, so that would be bad. there's no reason it can't be proposed again, coupled with making sport=swimming obsolete which would probably be best because it's such a muddled mess if you would like to change the voting numbers, there's no reason it can't be discussed, as with anything else on osm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 13/01/2008 12:23 PM Brent Easton Analyst/Programmer University of Western Sydney Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
