Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[2016-02-25 01:37] moltonel 3x Combo > > That is part of the problem with the proposal, and its votes. It > touched lots of topics, and some people probably got confused about > the rather focused intent (I certainly did). For example there was > strong consensus on the list

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

Taginfo is just reporting numbers. It can be hard to do a correct interpretation of those numbers - impact of an import / mechanical edit - impact of presets in editors - impact of a vocal member in a local community that is followed by a group of local mappers - impact of a crazy mapper (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 25/02/2016, Hakuch wrote: > On 24.02.2016 23:40, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Just like you 1) marked the proposal as approved 2) enacted the >> proposal 3) emailed the list all in one session a few days ago, I >> edited the wiki and emailed the list in one session today. > >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24/02/2016, Hakuch wrote: > On 24.02.2016 22:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> The opinions were varied, but there was clear support in keeping the >> name_N documentation, both for the basic principle of documenting >> current practices, and because some contributors believe

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24.02.2016 23:40, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Just like you 1) marked the proposal as approved 2) enacted the > proposal 3) emailed the list all in one session a few days ago, I > edited the wiki and emailed the list in one session today. sorry, but what is wrong that I did? The voting was over

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24.02.2016 22:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > There was not enough consensus to justify accepting and enacting the > proposal. Looking just at the vote counts but ignoring the discussions > around it makes little sense. the discussions are important, and they should go on to find a uniform

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24/02/2016, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Moltonel, could you please refrain from making changes that go against > the community wishes? I know you have good intentions (and you might > even be right), but the community has discussed this topic in depth > and decided on

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24/02/2016, Hakuch wrote: > hey, I didnt want to start an edit war, but I just didnt see that you > wrote on the tagging list. > > i will write more later, I even informed you just by message, but the > proposal was very clear, you were not allowed to just change the pages. >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

again, **you** just changed the wiki **without** consulting the list, the changes I made was decided by the proposal process that took quite a while. I just didnt know, that you also wrote something on the tagging list. However. On 24.02.2016 23:29, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

hey, I didnt want to start an edit war, but I just didnt see that you wrote on the tagging list. i will write more later, I even informed you just by message, but the proposal was very clear, you were not allowed to just change the pages. You even should have informed the list BEFORE you did it.

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:name=next=1275945 Same here, reverted without discussion. I think those changes are ill-advised and intend to restore name_N in the wiki but again: I don't want to go in an edit war and would really like you to discuss things.

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name=next=1275952 Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've explained how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of the discussion on

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 12/02/2016, Hakuch wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Remove_suffixed_name-tags_from_wiki > > It was approved with 38 votes for, 10 votes against and 1 abstention. > > Approved due to >74% approval (79.167%). Wikipages has been changed >

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

sent from a phone > Am 24.02.2016 um 11:52 schrieb Max : > > Where different people seem to be around. It's kind of tiring having to > bring up all the arguments again because some haven't followed the > discussion here. yes, mailing list discussions in the archive

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

sent from a phone > Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Dominic Coletti : > > Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the > process. can you explain? I think taginfo is usually involved in the process, in the sense that people look tags up

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

I meant a more formal incorporation such as adjusting the votes required based on Taginfo data. That said, I fully support how we currently use it. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 13:32 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the process. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:39 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > Am 23.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > >>> Approval rate: 68.97%.

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

sent from a phone Am 23.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : >>> Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional >>> rejection; proposer to make final call. >> >> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people >> who voted".

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

Very handy when you need it here. Internet cafes are somewhat common in rural Oklahoma despite charging $15-30/hour for access on fairly slow connections, but beats the pants off paying by the megabyte on AT's GPRS network (which can cost as much as $1000/GB). On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:24 PM,

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

The discussion seems to be happening in the wiki now https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dgallery#Problems_with_the_gallery_tag Where different people seem to be around. It's kind of tiring having to bring up all the arguments again because some haven't followed the discussion

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 2016년 02월 24일 11:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "there's not much we can do about it" - this is simply untrue. Editors > and map rendering have great power. With power comes responsibility. In my view the responsibility to make a map/rendering that distinguishes itself from all the commercial