That's somewhat overstates the case. Adoption vs. non-adoption is the acid
test of whether a proposal is acceptable or not, but the laissez-faire
approach does let the tagging get stuck in local minima. For instance,
the initial development of railway mashed together several distinct and
You're missing the point. OSM is already a meritocracy and tagging schemes
either float or they don't, in the wild, under their own merit. There's no
reforms that could be made to change this short of locking out the ability
to use key and value combinations that aren't anointed. Good luck with
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
You're missing the point. OSM is already a meritocracy and tagging
schemes either float or they don't, in the wild, under their own merit.
There's no reforms that could be made to change this short of locking out
the
On 2/02/2015 4:34 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout
daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor.
Yep.
Thus things don't get approved due to lack of votes because few
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
wrote:
And it seems for the most part, the tags with the most staying power seem
to be ones that were natural fits, and *then* were documented *how
they're actually used* in the wiki retroactively.
A mostly +1 on that.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1 Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor.
I joined this group to effect changes in tagging things of interest to me.
But the discussions inevitably go round and round with nary a thing getting
On 24/01/2015, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor.
I'd like to defend the voting system a bit. In my opinion it's working
fine. The only issue is that people have wrong expectations as to what
voting provides.
As has already
And it seems for the most part, the tags with the most staying power seem
to be ones that were natural fits, and *then* were documented *how
they're actually used* in the wiki retroactively.
A mostly +1 on that.
The *problem* tags however are the ones with murky meaning, that can never
be
Scene 7. Ext. Prehistoric Planet
FORD:
You don’t seem to understand…
MAN IN CROWD:
No, no, no I just -
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
It’s a simple matter! It’s a procedural matter! That’s the point!
CAPTAIN:
Alright, alright, alright, alright!
CHAIRMAN:
I’d like to call this meeting to some sort of
There seems to be conflation of this list as having some kind of
administrative function. It doesn't.
This isn't an OSMF working group, it's a discussion list, and as such
there is no administrative function for this list beyond the
boundraries of the voting process on the wiki.
In OSM, official
Martin,
Let me elaborate on what I mean by this not being the right forum.
I agree with you that it should be. The problem is that in my time on
this list- I've seen some pretty wacky ideas that go against what I
think most OSMers would consider good tagging.
I'd be worried about the results.
On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 1/23/15 8:37 PM, Warin wrote:
Yes .. it makes the admin more complex. But it will get some to say
something, and get others off the group. Flame away.
i do not think it appropriate for the membership of this
12 matches
Mail list logo
