Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.
I actually wonder how relevant this is. In general, I am a proponent of
saving resources, so the less transmitted data the better. But with the
increase of internet bandwidth and the speed of available hardware, the
2015-03-23 10:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
accessibility
sorry, /s/accessibility/diversity/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
branches
Am 23.03.2015 um 09:53 schrieb Paul Johnson:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote compared to the number of mappers.
STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
Those things might be nice for
I can't imagine that people who are able to provide mapping input for OSM
are not able to work with forums etc. Moderation is something you have to
agree upon before. The OSM community can decide not to moderate.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' problem, some even have a
system of
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote compared to the number of mappers.
STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody
else
2015-03-23 10:43 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:
The mailing lists are moderated.
they are moderately moderated, you have to act in a very asocial way to
risk moderation, unless it's the accessibility list, maybe ;-)
Cheers,
Martin
___
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ...
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 15:04 +0100, fly wrote:
as long as there is no alternative for offline support we need email.
Fly, once registered as a Loomio user, you can still choose to receive
and respond to email, maybe without ever actually logging into the
Loomio interface again (?).
Please also
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote:
... sensible stuff about off line work...
In an ideal world we would have one discussion platform that can be used
by a mail client as well as by a web forum software. I don't know if
anything like that exists, but basically it's the
Hi,
to mention a major drawback of a forum IMHO:
I can read a mailinglist offline. Fetch mails to my notebook once, read
and answer while being offline and sending mails from outgoing folder as
one batch late when online again.
With a forum I would have to open any unread thread beforehand,
2015-03-18 21:05 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Do we have abstention possible at all? The voting system currently only
implements yes and no:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Vote.
If we had abstention, I would have rather counted it as non-supporting. A
Dear all,
We have enough support to change the current math and no dramatic
opposition.
I will do it in the wiki now. If you feel I haven't taken something
critically important into account and this change is for the worse, not
better, please roll back.
The discussions on the more global change
2015-03-19 11:37 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Dear all,
We have enough support to change the current math and no dramatic
opposition.
I will do it in the wiki now.
FWIW, I didn't even count 8 positive votes that you said would be required
when cast unanimously, but at
I didn't mean to break the rules :) I thought I did count 8 +1's, plus the
discussion shifted to other topics, so no strong opposition was expressed.
If Pieren and you really see more harm than improvement in what I've done,
please feel free to roll back.
I have a general impression that
Martin,
Though Bryce introduced the abstain option with a nice pictogram :) I
don't remember seeing it used in any proposals. Therefore currently there
is no mathematical difference. Therefore I suggest that you just change the
rule from 74 % approval to not more than 25 % objection. Since we are
2015-03-19 12:00 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I didn't mean to break the rules :) I thought I did count 8 +1's, plus the
discussion shifted to other topics, so no strong opposition was expressed.
Yes, I didn't presume you had been acting in bad faith, just some
OK, is it fair to say any non specific vote, one that is neither a clear
yes nor a clear no is 'informal', not counted. Such a vote was cast with
the intention of it adding to neither yes nor no so we should observe
the voter's wish.
Note their opinion but not count an uncountable vote ?
David
On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
+1 on the change to a 75% threshold for voting. Negativity indicates the
proposal needs work.
Those with trouble scanning mailing lists should look into threading
options for their mail
client, or read discussions
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search,
Jan, I wonder if you've ever had a question, googled for an answer and
landed in a forum thread with 50+ pages with 10 posts per page.
Personally, I
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:
My issue with email lists is that for most emails I delete after reading.
If at some time later, I come across a tagging situation that I recall
being previously discussed I need to go into the mail archives at
Jan van Bekkum wrote
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote
compared to the number of mappers.
I will only talk for myself : I'm very interested in the outcome of this
specific discussion about tag proposals, and I did my best to make my way
thru the 6
Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was
proposed earlier).
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:32 PM sly (sylvain letuffe) lis...@letuffe.org
wrote:
Jan van Bekkum wrote
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote
compared to the number of
On 20/03/2015 4:45 AM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com
mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:
Also, if I need or want to resurrect the thread, that it typically
trivial on a forum as you just post a reply. But if I’ve pulled up
+1 on the change to a 75% threshold for voting. Negativity indicates the
proposal needs work.
Those with trouble scanning mailing lists should look into threading
options for their mail
client, or read discussions on threaded archive servers.
___
On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was
proposed earlier).
Then you'll have 4 sub-forums and a wiki.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:26 PM Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was
proposed earlier).
Then you'll have 4
2015-03-18 0:58 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Your rule would mean that with 7/3 would be a rejection while 8/7 an
approval.
I suggest to not only bring the logic back but also address this issue.
+1, I would like to reflect on the quorum rule. In the end, looking at
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Approved_or_rejected
from ...8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
-1
The main criticism about votes is the approved status and the
small amount of participants, not percentage of approvals. So change
the status name and increase the quorum, not the opposite. It's also
not a problem to keep
On 18.03.2015 07:29, David Bannon wrote:
And amazing how many people vote, compared to those that take part in
the discussion.
Indeed. I find that strange. I'd never vote on something I did not have
an opinion on. And, as you lot know, if I have an opinion, I share it !
Maybe people just
2015-03-18 12:55 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
- Develop a new formula first.
I'd prefer to require something like not more than x percent negative
votes rather than at least y percent positive votes, because when
requiring a percentage of positive votes all abstentions
On 17.03.2015 15:04, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes
in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Approved_or_rejected
from .../8 unanimous approval votes/ /or //15 total votes with a
majority approval.../
to /...8 or
On 18.03.2015 23:09, Warin wrote:
A person coming across something that they want to map and then finding it
on the wiki .. If that person is not on the tagging group then they don't
want to be concerned with making tags, they simply want to use them.
Compare it to politics. Many people don't
On 18.03.2015 22:40, Warin wrote:
Firstly I see no point in casting a vote of 'abstention'.. why vote at all?
An abstention indicates that someone has neither a strong positive nor
negative feeling even after pondering. The world is not just black and white.
When you look at my abstention
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:09 +1100, Warin wrote:
I see no point in having a proposal open for voting over 1 year, those
that want to vote have done so, the proposals voting should be closed
and resolved.
Hmm, I disagree. Just because the proposal did not get enough votes does
not mean it
On 19/03/2015 8:36 AM, Andreas Goss wrote:
What Forum?
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/
__
I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode'
On 19/03/2015 12:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
Most mappers don't read this mailing list, but they come across a
proposal when searching the wiki. E.g. when someone wishes to map a
beehive he's seen this morning, he'll search the wiki and he will find
Proposed features/apiary. This is a
On 18.03.2015 22:50, Warin wrote:
I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' problem, some even have a
system of not viewing post by someone they
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd prefer to require something like not more than x percent negative
votes rather than at least y percent positive votes, because when
requiring a percentage of positive votes all abstentions count like
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote compared to the number of mappers.
STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody
else it's just as mess and feels like spam.
We are 100x more productive in the
What Forum?
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 18/03/2015 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-03-18 12:55 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
mailto:kotya.li...@gmail.com:
- Develop a new formula first.
all abstentions count like negative votes.
Firstly I see no point in casting a vote of 'abstention'..
What Forum?
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Andreas Goss
Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2015 20:19
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
vote compared to the number
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:19 +0100, Andreas Goss wrote:
...
STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody
else it's just as mess and feels like spam.
Andreas, I don't think email or mailing lists require tech savy. My 87
year old mother
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and vote
compared to the number of mappers.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:01 AM Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Jan,
Your rule would mean that with 7/3 would be a rejection while 8/7 an
approval.
I suggest to
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:17 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
I'd suggest a large percentage of mappers are not aware of this list,
or, if aware, do not see it as relevant to them and do not subscribe.
I mapped for many years before subscribing.
+1
but also:
- most mappers
I'd suggest a large percentage of mappers are not aware of this list,
or, if aware, do not see it as relevant to them and do not subscribe.
I mapped for many years before subscribing.
David
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 06:08 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
It is amazing to see how few people
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and vote
compared to the number of mappers.
And amazing how many people vote, compared to those that take part in
the discussion.
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 23:16 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
..
And amazing how many people vote, compared to those that take part in
the discussion.
Indeed. I find that strange. I'd never vote on something I did not have
an opinion on. And, as you lot know, if I have an opinion, I share it !
I've noticed that when the voting opens, people post about the proposal on
national mailing lists and fora. I guess several people then take a look
for the first time.
regards
m.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:29 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 23:16 -0700,
Am 17.03.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I don't think there is a procedure to vote on such proposals, so please just
give it +1 here if you agree. We change it when we have 8+ plus ones if
there are no significant objections to this change.
Once again,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
inscription
note (not rendered .. for use by mappers to make notes to other mappers ?
thus not required to be rendered?)
Visible in a popup in geschichtskarten for historical items.
But you were talking about all
Yep, count me as +1
David
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:04 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point
was that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for
accepted/rejected decision was self-contradicting. Even if
+1
2015-03-17 15:04 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was
that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected
decision was self-contradicting. Even if there may be
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I also don't think there is a procedure to change the proposal voting
system and how votes are counted. 8 votes in favor of a change seem too
few, and besides this, IMHO this is not something we should vote on
Hi Jan,
Your rule would mean that with 7/3 would be a rejection while 8/7 an
approval.
I suggest to not only bring the logic back but also address this issue.
I agree that it changes the rules, but why not try to improve them?
Cheers,
Kotya
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
wrote:
+1 on *...8 or more **unanimous approval votes or 10 or more total
votes with more than 74 % approval...**.*
This is a ridiculous low number
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
+1 on *...8 or more **unanimous approval votes or 10 or more total votes
with more than 74 % approval...**.*
This is a ridiculous low number when there are +2.000.000 accounts and
+3300 active mappers yesterday.
But I
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was
that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected
decision was self-contradicting. Even if there may be different opinions on
that, the very discussion shows that the situation is not
+1
On Mar 17, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was
that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected
decision was self-contradicting. Even if there may be different opinions
+1
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Kotya Karapetyan
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2015 14:04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was that
the current number of votes proposed
I would like to stick to my original proposal. It brings the logic back,
but doesn't change the rules.
*enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a
majority approval otherwise.*
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
Approval and rejection at the moment are only tagging group indicators..
the best 'indicator' is that it is rendered.
And that is not a function of JOSM nor iD .. but the renderers .. there
are a few of them .. if they all
2015-03-16 11:55 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com:
I don't think being rendered on all renderers is a proper decision
criteria
+1, the list of tags mostly not rendered but well established is long:
opening_hours
wikipedia
start_date
operator
(population) (is actually taken into
On 16/03/2015 7:11 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 14.03.2015 21:27, Clifford Snow wrote:
I would suggest adopting Conditional Approval approach. If the proposal
receives sufficient votes, it becomes Conditionally Approved. Only after
it becomes widespread and adopted by JOSM and iD it
On 16/03/2015 10:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-03-16 11:55 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com
mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com:
I don't think being rendered on all renderers is a proper
decision criteria
+1, the list of tags mostly not rendered but well established is
On 14.03.2015 21:11, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
mailto:kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones?
+1 on that.
On 14.03.2015 21:27, Clifford Snow wrote:
I would suggest adopting Conditional Approval approach. If the proposal
receives sufficient votes, it becomes Conditionally Approved. Only after
it becomes widespread and adopted by JOSM and iD it becomes an Approved
tag.
No. Editor developers aleady
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones?
I agree that the current situation looks funny pretty often.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich
The reality is that a tag becomes approved once it is adopted by
developers and is used extensively. Voting has its purpose, mainly to weed
out proposals that need more work. As others have said 8 approvals and 7
declines indicate that more work needs to be done. Even if a proposal
receives 8
On 15/03/2015 4:44 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes
and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones?
+1 on that. Anything without a super-majority clearly needs more
discussion and/or experience. The
On 14.03.2015 12:50, Dan S wrote:
When there is very low interest (i.e. very few votes) - which is
pretty common - then even one dissenting vote is enough to make us
step back and think again, whereas if there are enough votes to make
majority approval a meaningful concept (I admit that 15 is
Hi,
No, I think it means what it says. Or at least, I think we have
treated it that way for a long while.
When there is very low interest (i.e. very few votes) - which is
pretty common - then even one dissenting vote is enough to make us
step back and think again, whereas if there are enough
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is
A rule of thumb for enough support is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15
total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be
considered (such as whether a feature is already in use).
This sounds a bit strange to me: a
On 14.03.2015 12:24, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is
A rule of thumb for enough support is /8 unanimous approval votes/ or /15
total votes with a majority approval/, but other factors may also be
considered (such as whether a feature is already
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1
decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines
would be accepted.
Anything with that level of opposition (7
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
As you are already indicating, 15 is too low a quorum in that case. We
cannot considering 8:7 votes an approval when we cosider 8:1 votes an
approval. That would mean that more negative votes would turn a rejection
to
80 matches
Mail list logo
