I hope it were faster than annually at SOTM and that the voting be more participatory since not everyone involved can be at SOTM.
But anyway, I like the idea of working groups to handle individual schema upgrades. On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Tom Chance <t...@acrewoods.net> wrote: > > Dear all, > > If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing, > it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails, > disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We > develop, over years, one set of tags like > highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the > schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a > structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus. > > For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine. > Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side > by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction. > > Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about > existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the > whole thing is falling apart. > > So... > > I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process: > > - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice > - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the > proposal to small working groups > - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete > proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. > - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote > - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering > stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, > auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals > > So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work > out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at > SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that > probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line > with the new schema would kick off. > > Does this sound workable? > > Regards, > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
