Re: [Tagging] How to change currently voted on proposal (Bird Tower)?
sent from a phone > On 1 Dec 2016, at 21:40, markus schnalke wrote: > > The change appears to be too large to let the voting continue. > Seems we should abort the vote, change the proposal and start > a new voting phase. yes > (Where do we store the old voting state, > which includes valuable comments you can either copy them to the discussion page (if you vote on the same page), or close the proposal and start a new one with the new propositions (I'd likely do the former, keeps the things together that belong closely together) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to change currently voted on proposal (Bird Tower)?
On 02-Dec-16 07:40 AM, markus schnalke wrote: Hoi community, we are currently in voting phase for our Bird Tower proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bird_Tower It happens that we are currently receiving comments, which we would have liked to receive during RFC phase. Well, we don't mind because these comments are definitly worthwhile, no matter when they drop in. But this leads us to the problem that we would like to improve our proposal, motivated by those comments. Our question is how to change a proposal once we are in voting phase already? Let me explain the situation: We proposed to use man_made=mast + tower:type=nesting_site to tag artificial nesting aids. There were two comments that the examples for man_made=tower would be inappropriate. After closer examining the definitions of tower and mast, we agree and would like to remove or alter these examples. That shouldn't be a problem, I think. Furthermore, however, we received the most valuable comment by sorcrosc that man_made=nesting_site + support=pole (or mast, ...) would be a better tagging. Now that we were pointed to this tagging, we agree that it is superior, because it not only allows to distinguish between masts and poles (which was the topic of the fourth comment we received) but also allows to tag wall_mounted nesting aids, which are not covered at all with our currently proposed tagging. There are also tree nesting sites - man made. Hence, we would like to generalize the proposal by providing a more flexible tagging ... but how do we do this? The change appears to be too large to let the voting continue. Seems we should abort the vote, change the proposal and start a new voting phase. (Where do we store the old voting state, which includes valuable comments?) Unfortunately, the proposal process wiki page does not seem to give answers for this case. We would much appreciate to get some advice on how to deal with this situation. meillo, for the OSM group UlmerAlb ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to change currently voted on proposal (Bird Tower)?
Hoi community, we are currently in voting phase for our Bird Tower proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bird_Tower It happens that we are currently receiving comments, which we would have liked to receive during RFC phase. Well, we don't mind because these comments are definitly worthwhile, no matter when they drop in. But this leads us to the problem that we would like to improve our proposal, motivated by those comments. Our question is how to change a proposal once we are in voting phase already? Let me explain the situation: We proposed to use man_made=mast + tower:type=nesting_site to tag artificial nesting aids. There were two comments that the examples for man_made=tower would be inappropriate. After closer examining the definitions of tower and mast, we agree and would like to remove or alter these examples. That shouldn't be a problem, I think. Furthermore, however, we received the most valuable comment by sorcrosc that man_made=nesting_site + support=pole (or mast, ...) would be a better tagging. Now that we were pointed to this tagging, we agree that it is superior, because it not only allows to distinguish between masts and poles (which was the topic of the fourth comment we received) but also allows to tag wall_mounted nesting aids, which are not covered at all with our currently proposed tagging. Hence, we would like to generalize the proposal by providing a more flexible tagging ... but how do we do this? The change appears to be too large to let the voting continue. Seems we should abort the vote, change the proposal and start a new voting phase. (Where do we store the old voting state, which includes valuable comments?) Unfortunately, the proposal process wiki page does not seem to give answers for this case. We would much appreciate to get some advice on how to deal with this situation. meillo, for the OSM group UlmerAlb ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility
sent from a phone > On 1 Dec 2016, at 10:42, Colin Smale wrote: > > What would this "visibility" tag *actually* be used for? Choosing the right > size of icon on a map? Navigation hints for pilots? Choosing where to stand > for the best view? yes it could help deciding what to show when. For things, e.g. advertisement, it is a possible way of classification cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility
Given good elevation data and feature height, the "visibility" of tall structures can surely be calculated geometrically. Factor in the width, the human-eye factors (angular resolution) and maybe atmospheric distortion and you are there, in an objective sense. The distance will be dependent on the heading, as the feature may be obscured by other things from certain directions. What would this "visibility" tag *actually* be used for? Choosing the right size of icon on a map? Navigation hints for pilots? Choosing where to stand for the best view? //colin On 2016-12-01 09:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I think it's ok, maybe there's room for another value beyond area, like > 'distance' or 'landmark', or maybe 'region', things that are visible from > relatively far away, like from the next village, or from suburbia, like > skyscrapers, tv towers, big towers in general, even smaller towers but atop > a mountain, church towers in traditional settings, etc. > Maybe this is already covered with the "landmark" tag? > > Cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility
I think it's ok, maybe there's room for another value beyond area, like 'distance' or 'landmark', or maybe 'region', things that are visible from relatively far away, like from the next village, or from suburbia, like skyscrapers, tv towers, big towers in general, even smaller towers but atop a mountain, church towers in traditional settings, etc. Maybe this is already covered with the "landmark" tag? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
