There I asked to form a working group for a project like this. Because I
myself don't have the time or capacity to work on this alone. It would
even be better when more people could participate in something like this
On 25.02.2016 22:48, Dominic Coletti wrote:
> I am not literate in German, but I
I am not literate in German, but I think the idea of a dedicated website to
proposal, or at least a tool outside of the Wiki proper would be very
helpful.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:46 PM Hakuch wrote:
> On 25.02.2016 06:57, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > How can we let more people with
On 25.02.2016 06:57, Marc Gemis wrote:
> How can we let more people with more different backgrounds participate in
> the tagging definition process ? And do we want this ?
>
> I have no idea.
>
just before I read this topic, I started a thread in the (german, sorry)
forum to discuss about a
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.
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
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
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%.
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".
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
On 24/02/2016 11:34 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
The reality is that most mappers don't pay any attention to this group
or the "decisions" we make. It's all well and good to make careful
deliberations about this tag or that one but in the end people will do
what they want. They will continue to
The reality is that most mappers don't pay any attention to this group or
the "decisions" we make. It's all well and good to make careful
deliberations about this tag or that one but in the end people will do what
they want. They will continue to tag for the renderer, add tags that make
no sense
On 23.02.2016 13:42, Andy Townsend wrote:
> As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already,
you can say my name if you want to :)
> they've
> never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case
> they want to tell _other people_ how to tag things that they
Don't forget it doesn't really matter if the tag is jewelry or
jewellery. It's about having a uniform way of tagging. Who would vote
against that, I wonder? And if both values are currently considered
equivalent in OSM, changing existing data from one spelling to another
does not change the value
On 23/02/2016 12:32, markus schnalke wrote:
Aren't the ones who vote those who care for what the actual
tagging is?
As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already, they've
never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case
they want to tell _other people_
[2016-02-23 11:54] Andy Townsend
> >
> > It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and
> > 4 abstentions.
> > Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional
> > rejection; proposer to make final call.
>
> The tricky bit of course is that
And how much of 1100 mappers would really be interested ine the spelling
of the word? Only beacause you map something, doesnt mean that you care
about the tagging, me for example never tagged a jewelry (or jewellery
:)) shop, but I did care about the proposal.
So, of course, its a pitty that only
On 23 February 2016 at 12:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people who
> voted".
>
> Taginfo reckons objects with the key "shop" were last edited by 105 030
> different users, and there are 1,976,690 shops, of which 20,851
On 23/02/2016 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and
4 abstentions.
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
On 23 February 2016 at 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal
> proceduce to change the way we count the votes? How was this procedure
> introduced?
>
> Example, the current jeweller voting:
> Voting closed
ok I don't have a neutral opinion on this proposal, but I think
especially here, if you want to change 20.000 tagged objects, it should
be three quarters.
On 23.02.2016 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal
> proceduce to change
20 matches
Mail list logo