On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
any idea how to determine this? Please see my examples above of different
tags for different features. Obviously a tag for obelisks will very
unlikely get 1 uses and more, while this might still be very few
2015-03-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ... 'Expired',
'Resting', 'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to some other
status? Unless they are in status 'Voting' then judged on the total votes?
-1
2015-03-04 10:57 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
status = 'de facto' ?
any idea how to determine this? Please see my examples above of different
tags for different features. Obviously a tag for obelisks will very
unlikely get 1 uses and more, while this might still be very few for
I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way.
I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected.
After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ...
'Expired', 'Resting', 'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to
some
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
-1
Everyone can see from the dates since when a proposal is proposed.
Something like expired, resting or paused does not have any benefit
besides discouraging unexperienced mappers from using it, while it may
On 4/03/2015 5:56 PM, David Bannon wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it quite hard to find existing proposals,
perhaps because there are so many
On 4/03/2015 7:53 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way.
I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected.
After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ...
'Expired', 'Resting', 'Paused
2015-03-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com:
After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ...
'Expired', 'Resting', 'Paused ' or ?
... pining for the fjords? This tag's not dead, it's
Cheers,
Andy
It isn't good either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer
it for voting later on.
Why not? In one case I had an idea for tag that turned out to be poor one.
Testing it by using
saved producing proposal that maybe would seem reasonable but would have
many problems.
2015-03-03
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think it is good to leave tags in a floating state for a long
time as it will prevent people from starting to use them. It isn't good
either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer it for voting
At this moment I have three proposals the comment stage (campsite
classification, vehicle storage, camping electricity supply) with a very
simple purpose: to fill holes in the mapping possibilities for overlanders
(people travelling for a long time with their own transport often through
developing
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
In summary I doubt if the proposed changes will bring an improvement, but
I wonder if we need voting at all, or only the preceding discussion.
The voting hurdle tends to force the discussion.
That's the value of the
It may be a bit off-topic, but as I have expressed elsewhere, I think one of
the problems with the current voting process is the infrastructure.
I believe that using a mailing list plus wiki voting worked ok so far, but
needs to be updated.
Most young people probably don't even know what a
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, perhaps because there
are so many abandoned ones.
- A list of active votes can be found at Category:Proposed features
Voting
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it quite hard to find existing proposals,
perhaps because there are so many abandoned ones.
* A list of active
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well !
I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voting
altogether. Voting does focus the group and as it has a formal finish
date, might (just might) encourage closure.
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:36 -0700, jgpacker wrote:
We should try to look for other systems, such as Loomio [1]
The current approach is, perhaps a touch clunky but its stable and
predictable as a service. Mailing lists and wikis have been around for a
long time. There are almost identical
In exchange for a positive vote I am more than happy to share the links :-)
-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent
-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage
-
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The current wiki vote guidelines read:
Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
details.
Consider instead this wording:
There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes.
Too subjective ! (Finally, I
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
..
8 or more unanimous approval votes.
16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
or abstaining.
Interesting to consider the current state of reception_desk proposal,
On 3/03/2015 12:31 PM, David Bannon wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The current wiki vote guidelines read:
Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
details.
Consider instead this wording:
There is no firm definition of
The current wiki vote guidelines read:
*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).*
Consider instead this wording:
*There is no firm
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:46 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
Its interesting to note that most 'no' were concerned it is a tourism
only tag despite that issue being discussed (and resolved ??) on this
list.
For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss a
few important steps.
+1
The process works well then the proposal itself is refined and improved
through the process. The vote then becomes
24 matches
Mail list logo
