>
> > Think StackExchange.
> >
> Nice. But practicable ?
>
Why not?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:30 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> I believe the current requirement to add a reason for a
> "dislike" is important and should not be dropped by
> substituting it with a simple clic
OK, I see the difference between our approaches. I still don't see the
problem though:
> If you convert that to a Key:Smoothness page, the wiki becomes
> completely disconnected from the db.
Sorry, I don't understand it. Do you mean the OSM database? How is it
connected now and why will a change
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:24 +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 18/03/2015, David Bannon wrote:
> > No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
> > objectively determine what the discussion concluded.
> > [...]
> > No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-03-19 0:56 GMT+01:00 David Bannon :
>
>> * Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
>> "like" or "dislike" button and aggregate score is shown. For some time
>> (?). Obvious
2015-03-19 0:56 GMT+01:00 David Bannon :
> * Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
> "like" or "dislike" button and aggregate score is shown. For some time
> (?). Obviously they can also edit content to say why.
>
I believe the current requirement to add a reason
On 18/03/2015, David Bannon wrote:
> No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
> objectively determine what the discussion concluded.
> [...]
> No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct
> members but it is necessary.
Don't you see the
On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
> wrote:
>> Why should the page be "converted to a feature page" ?
>
> Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a
> stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distingui
On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
> wrote:
>> Why should the page be "converted to a feature page" ?
>
> Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a
> stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distingui
2015-03-18 23:56 GMT+00:00 David Bannon :
> Kotya, in no way was I criticising the leadership you have shown in this
> matter !
>
> Its just that I preferred Dan's approach. Key IMHO is -
>
> * A proposal gets to wiki in much the same manner as now.
>
> * Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote
Kotya, in no way was I criticising the leadership you have shown in this
matter !
Its just that I preferred Dan's approach. Key IMHO is -
* A proposal gets to wiki in much the same manner as now.
* Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
"like" or "dislike" button a
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, David Bannon
wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote:
> >
> > So here's how I would answer your question of how would "an interested
> > party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded":
> > instead of approved/rejected, some s
To make it clear:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
wrote:
> Why should the page be "converted to a feature page" ?
Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a
stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distinguished from a
proposal created ye
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote:
>
> So here's how I would answer your question of how would "an interested
> party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded":
> instead of approved/rejected, some sort of visual widget on the wiki
> page which summarised the {{yes
2015-03-18 21:58 GMT+00:00 David Bannon :
> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:40 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
>
>> . would it make sense to change the current proposal/voting
>> mechanism like follows?
>
>> - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined
>> mathematically if needed),
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:40 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> . would it make sense to change the current proposal/voting
> mechanism like follows?
> - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined
> mathematically if needed), this very page is converted into a feature
> page.
On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> I think some opposition to a proper voting mechanism is concentrating too
> much on the numbers. Indeed, we can have just 1 person proposing a tag, 20
> people voting about it, and thousands actually using (or miusing) it.
> However:
>
> 1) As mentioned els
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> +1 on showing the vote and discussion in the final page.
>
> And I guess +1 on the lack of a vote. The ugly proposals DO look ugly.
>
> ---
> This works well for single proposals, but fails to capture *competing
> proposals *or* subsequent
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Martin Vonwald
wrote:
> Very good ideas and it would bring the original intention of OSM back into
> the play: the numbers count and not the two-and-a-half people putting a
> line starting with "yes" somewhere in the wiki.
>
>
I think some opposition to a proper
19 matches
Mail list logo
