Re: [Tagging] Voting procedures (Was: Re: Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved)
May 8, 2020, 18:06 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Phake Nick wrote: > >> Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more >> than what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during the >> discussion. The only two remotely relevant mentions about it during the >> discussion process was 1. one user who think there should be a new parents >> tag that cover both regular taxi and motorcycle taxi, and 2. another who >> incorrectly assuned "motorcycle taxi" is a combination of two different >> features just because the term come with a space. That clearly indicate >> discussion was not sufficient and that the proposal should restart the >> discussion process. >> > > > Our 'yes/no' voting on proposals leads to a pathological phenomenon > that I've seen happen several times. > > Someone wants to map a particular feature, and floats an idea for a > tag 'A' on the list. > > Several other people counter-propose incompatible tags 'B', 'C', 'D' - > each with its own advantages and disadvantages. > > None of these tags garners a clear majority of commenters. > > Either the proponent abandons the idea, or else falls back on 'any > tags you like', or actually bites the bullet and makes a formal > proposal, calling the vote. > > In the last case, which is already uncommon, the vote fails, because, > if for instance, 'B' becomes the final proposal, all of the supporters > of 'A', 'C', 'D' vote against the proposal. > In my case I proceed with vote only in case of a clear support for a proposal. (man_made=bridge, man_made=carpet_hanger) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/carpet_hanger I made some proposals where discussion was very useful and helped to improve page, but I decided to not risk a vote. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/street_vendor%3Dyes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours:signed%3Dno No vote at all and de facto tag is better outcome than a failed vote if you want to tag something with an accepted tag. Personally I am fine with this idea, I consider review, criticism and discussion as the useful part of a proposal process. And I give little weight to whatever tag was approved by vote or not. (that is also why people wanting to deprecate highway=bus_stop or promote landcover=* tag family will not make a proposal with vote, because it is very likely that it would be rejected) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Voting procedures
The subject of a vote should not be amendable. All the discussions, debates, consideration of alternatives etc should be BEFORE the proposal is put to the vote. If a vote fails, THEN the proposal might be amended and submitted again - but this has to be subject to some time constraints such as not less than 1 month after the previous vote to stop people making a quick tweak and resubmitting it immediately. When is a proposal "ready for a vote," other than on a timer? How do you measure or sense if the vote is likely to pass, i.e. a reasonable consensus has been achieved? A quick check amongst a good sample of the commenters perhaps? Are they happy that their concerns have now been addressed? What about having a proposal reviewed for readiness, before a vote can be announced? Which brings us back to the psyche of a "good tagging schema". What's the difference between a tagging scheme, and a BETTER tagging scheme? For example allowing flexibility to add details in the future, and getting the balance right between world-wide standards and regional variations. Other aspects like alignment with established standards, both current OSM practise and internationally accepted norms, should also be on the list. Too many comments, right down to the wire, are along the lines of "I would do it this way..." or "in my country it works like this...". There will be a period of this kind of exchange of course, but it should followed by a convergence phase that has a concrete proposal on the table, that may still undergo minor tweaks but no great changes of direction. On 2020-05-08 18:06, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Phake Nick wrote: > >> Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more >> than what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during the >> discussion. The only two remotely relevant mentions about it during the >> discussion process was 1. one user who think there should be a new parents >> tag that cover both regular taxi and motorcycle taxi, and 2. another who >> incorrectly assuned "motorcycle taxi" is a combination of two different >> features just because the term come with a space. That clearly indicate >> discussion was not sufficient and that the proposal should restart the >> discussion process. > > Our 'yes/no' voting on proposals leads to a pathological phenomenon > that I've seen happen several times. > > Someone wants to map a particular feature, and floats an idea for a > tag 'A' on the list. > > Several other people counter-propose incompatible tags 'B', 'C', 'D' - > each with its own advantages and disadvantages. > > None of these tags garners a clear majority of commenters. > > Either the proponent abandons the idea, or else falls back on 'any > tags you like', or actually bites the bullet and makes a formal > proposal, calling the vote. > > In the last case, which is already uncommon, the vote fails, because, > if for instance, 'B' becomes the final proposal, all of the supporters > of 'A', 'C', 'D' vote against the proposal. > > Any of the other schemes would also have been rejected. > > Do we need to refine the system to something like: supermajority that > the feature should be mapped, and preference voting for how to map it? > > I will concede that I've never called for a vote on any proposal, > because after testing the waters on this list, I've taken the cowardly > option of falling back to 'any tags you like'. Even though there > appears to be a consensus (recall that consensus is not unanimity!) > that things like 'access=permit' or 'protection_class=*' are small > steps in the right direction, there was clearly enough controversy > over the details that it became obvious to me that a vote on either > proposal would fail. > > In many cases the failures truly are ones of metaphysical > understanding. For a taxi service, is the vehicle (car, motorcycle, > pedicab, rickshaw) the essence, and 'for hire' a mere accident, or is > 'passenger service for hire' the essence, and the choice of vehicle > the accident? In typical tagging discussions like this one, I often > see several other attributes being proposed as essential, and the > attempt to fit the entire world into a taxonomic tree fails because > nobody can agree which attributes are generic and which are specific. > That inevitably comes of using Platonic tagging to approximate an > Aristotelian understanding of the objects being tagged. Tagging will > always be approximate. The map is not the territory. > > I have little sympathy for those who cannot be troubled to comment on > a proposal in progress and then pop up with new objections after the > vote is called. I consider that to be obstructionist behaviour. While > it does not necessarily negate the technical value of the objection, > it is annoying in the extreme. It can also serve as a presumptive (not > determinative!) measure of the technical merit; people with a deep > technical
[Tagging] Voting procedures (Was: Re: Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved)
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Phake Nick wrote: > Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more than > what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during the > discussion. The only two remotely relevant mentions about it during the > discussion process was 1. one user who think there should be a new parents > tag that cover both regular taxi and motorcycle taxi, and 2. another who > incorrectly assuned "motorcycle taxi" is a combination of two different > features just because the term come with a space. That clearly indicate > discussion was not sufficient and that the proposal should restart the > discussion process. Our 'yes/no' voting on proposals leads to a pathological phenomenon that I've seen happen several times. Someone wants to map a particular feature, and floats an idea for a tag 'A' on the list. Several other people counter-propose incompatible tags 'B', 'C', 'D' - each with its own advantages and disadvantages. None of these tags garners a clear majority of commenters. Either the proponent abandons the idea, or else falls back on 'any tags you like', or actually bites the bullet and makes a formal proposal, calling the vote. In the last case, which is already uncommon, the vote fails, because, if for instance, 'B' becomes the final proposal, all of the supporters of 'A', 'C', 'D' vote against the proposal. Any of the other schemes would also have been rejected. Do we need to refine the system to something like: supermajority that the feature should be mapped, and preference voting for how to map it? I will concede that I've never called for a vote on any proposal, because after testing the waters on this list, I've taken the cowardly option of falling back to 'any tags you like'. Even though there appears to be a consensus (recall that consensus is not unanimity!) that things like 'access=permit' or 'protection_class=*' are small steps in the right direction, there was clearly enough controversy over the details that it became obvious to me that a vote on either proposal would fail. In many cases the failures truly are ones of metaphysical understanding. For a taxi service, is the vehicle (car, motorcycle, pedicab, rickshaw) the essence, and 'for hire' a mere accident, or is 'passenger service for hire' the essence, and the choice of vehicle the accident? In typical tagging discussions like this one, I often see several other attributes being proposed as essential, and the attempt to fit the entire world into a taxonomic tree fails because nobody can agree which attributes are generic and which are specific. That inevitably comes of using Platonic tagging to approximate an Aristotelian understanding of the objects being tagged. Tagging will always be approximate. The map is not the territory. I have little sympathy for those who cannot be troubled to comment on a proposal in progress and then pop up with new objections after the vote is called. I consider that to be obstructionist behaviour. While it does not necessarily negate the technical value of the objection, it is annoying in the extreme. It can also serve as a presumptive (not determinative!) measure of the technical merit; people with a deep technical understanding of the issue tend to involve themselves in the process in a timely manner. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
