Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
So theoretically, we shouldn't ban anything from being mapped (or almost anything). But practically, we don't want people being routed to the nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this? One way could be to add a prefix like private: to anything that is by default public. So, private:amenity=toilette, or private:amenity=waste_disposal. Then, add an operator tag to it, like, operator=Massachusetts Electric Company. If you find yourself inside an area that has operator=Massachusetts Electric Company, then the router can safely assume you can access anything with the private: prefix and a operator=Massachusetts Electric Company tag. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
2015-03-18 7:02 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: Just some idea: Translate the proposal in German, French, Spanish and Russian, ... (the largest communities outside the English speaking countries) Let people vote and discuss in their own language. Sum up the votes from the different pages. -1, I doubt this will work, and I think this creates too much overhead. First I believe it is not feasible, look how many pages for the approved tags are actually translated. Of course you can have (and there is already) discussion in different languages, but this doesn't have to be in the wiki (a wiki is generally not a good platform to discuss stuff, IMHO). Secondly I think that this will lead to more confusion because people will vote on different stuff (a translation is always a translation and might bear language intrinsic limitations, proposals get changed in the time until voting, this is also desirable, but translations would have to keep up, something we don't even achieve for the definition pages of well established and frequently used important tags). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On 18/03/2015 5:02 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.comwrote: A separate debate is how to increase voting participation. making pending votes more visible in the editing tools could help. Just some idea: Translate the proposal in German, French, Spanish and Russian, ... (the largest communities outside the English speaking countries) Let people vote and discuss in their own language. Sum up the votes from the different pages. It is a good idea. The main problem is that an issue in one place may have been resoled in another. So there may need to be some cross flow between the discussions when required/requested? The secondary issue is the translation. I'm afraid I'd be using one of those computer translators to do it .. thus there will be some amusement .. not a bad thing .. it can be cleaned up once done. Not everyone is willing/capable to discuss in a foreign language. Yep. And thus OSM misses out on probably some very good ideas. And this may well encourage others to make more tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 11:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: So theoretically, we shouldn't ban anything from being mapped (or almost anything). But practically, we don't want people being routed to the nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this? if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and the tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag is for toilet[s] open to the public. If you find yourself inside an area that has operator=Massachusetts Electric Company, then the router can safely assume you can access anything with the private: prefix and a operator=Massachusetts Electric Company tag. not at all. You can't assume it. Also that scheme would require really a lot of tags to be added because it seems it doesn't rely on inheritance from encompassing objects. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
2015-03-18 11:09 GMT+01:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: the use of abstruse abbreviations for the non-natives like ngo, aed or asl. +1 Even if certain things were tagged differently in different parts of the word, that would not break OpenStreetMap. Only a fraction of us is thinking like this. Using 2, 3 or 10 different tags for the exact same thing is surely providing a job for OSM consultants but is creating unnecessarily complexity for contributors and data consumers. this is only true if they want to have coverage of different parts of the world or map in different parts of the world, because it seems as if Fred asumed that inside these parts the tags would have been used consistently. Generally, having several tags meaning the same thing is not a problem, using the same tag with different meanings is a problem. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I said few years ago that vote should be replaced by opinion poll. This hasn't change in my view, It is however not true that tagging votes are an important core element of how we work; we can do perfectly fine without. Yes and no. It is not a core element but getting feedbacks before formalising a new tag is better than nothing even locally (like imports, no ?). But it is true that a tag approved in the wiki doesn't avoid bad tags. See the endless discussions around smoothness or highway=ford on ways or the use of abstruse abbreviations for the non-natives like ngo, aed or asl. Even if certain things were tagged differently in different parts of the word, that would not break OpenStreetMap. Only a fraction of us is thinking like this. Using 2, 3 or 10 different tags for the exact same thing is surely providing a job for OSM consultants but is creating unnecessarily complexity for contributors and data consumers. Wikipedia wouldn't accept two articles on the exact same topic. It is our responsibility to keep the project usable, even for new data consumers. The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and would recommend using it rather than This proposal has been accepted True. So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. But the wiki is currently giving the impression that the vote process is formal and important. So something has to be changed. Btw, I don't think that translations will help. Some proposals don't have many feedbacks simply because the interest is not shared by a large group. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On 18/03/2015 6:21 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Everyone, The outcome of a vote should really be phrased: The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and would recommend using it rather than This proposal has been accepted because the latter really affords the whole process much more relevance than it actually has. Agree. But I'd resist naming the people, something like this? This key:value was supported by 30 people on the OSM tagging group. ? As the proposal page remains on the wiki and can be seen by all there is no point in repeating the names. The number of approval votes gives some idea of the value of the statement. Unfortunately the status value remains as 'approved'. Perhaps 'recommended' or 'endorsed' for the status? Even add the number there 'endorsed by 30'? .. 'supported' may be taken as being rendered so I'd not use that. - If 'we' want increased participation .. 'we' need to encourage membership. And encourage new discussions on tags and tagging. No mater how 'inexperienced some view the new member. As the radius of knowledge increases the circumference of ignorance expands. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 11:38 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and the tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag is for toilet[s] open to the public. Well, it is a toilet, and it is an amenity, although a private one. So why not private:amenity=* or maybe amenity:private=* ? Also that scheme would require really a lot of tags to be added because it seems it doesn't rely on inheritance from encompassing objects. What new tags do you speak of? I didn't quite understand. Did you mean we should invent an access=* tag that is by it's nature inherited from encompassing objects? Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 11:52 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and the tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag is for toilet[s] open to the public. Well, it is a toilet, and it is an amenity, although a private one. So why not private:amenity=* or maybe amenity:private=* ? yes, you could do that (I doubt it will be something a lot of mappers will map, at least not around here), my comment was referring to your question we don't want people being routed to the nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this?. If either approach is used (not mapping at all, or prefixing private), than we will not have to fix anything, I just wanted to point out that already at the status quo, mapping a private toilet inside a power plant with amenity=toilets is an error. Also that scheme would require really a lot of tags to be added because it seems it doesn't rely on inheritance from encompassing objects. What new tags do you speak of? I didn't quite understand. Did you mean we should invent an access=* tag that is by it's nature inherited from encompassing objects? It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 how many people map and how many people take part in tagging mailing list discussions and voting on tags, any number we can reasonably put there will be ridiculous compared to the number of mappers. On this background there is not much difference between a vote of 6 people and one of 18. If we want to stick to the quorum (what does likely make sense to avoid the theoretical problem of one or two people alone occupying useful key or value names with unusual definitions), I suggest to lower it even more, like requiring at least 5 positive votes and a 2 third majority of positive votes (or not more than one third negative votes). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
2015-03-18 9:15 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and would recommend using it rather than This proposal has been accepted because the latter really affords the whole process much more relevance than it actually has. Agree. But I'd resist naming the people actually I think naming the people is important, because this way you can decide if this has been looked through by someone you have confidence in. This is a way people can get reputation and others can decide based on their preferences and the reputation the people that voted have gained or lost from their personal point of view. If this was anonymous the naked number would be much less useful. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 approval... to ...8 or more unanimous approval votes or 10 or more total votes with more than 74 % approval This will not change anything in terms of the ongoing discussion of how the approval influences other things. So the discussion can continue. But we'd introduce some mathematical logic in the process. -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 the vote open for a long time. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 12:15 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right. Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets, waste_disposals, and so on. But they are already mapped wrong, so something has to be done. Adding a private: prefix and operator=* tag is one idea, maybe there is a cleaner way. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema? If it is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not amenity=toilet and access=private? Or a better example, a toilet in a train station that is for staff only amenity=toilet access=private or access=official? Where’s the problem you're trying to fix? Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Janko Mihelić Sent: Wednesday, 18 March 2015 11:30 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 2015-03-18 12:15 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right. Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets, waste_disposals, and so on. But they are already mapped wrong, so something has to be done. Adding a private: prefix and operator=* tag is one idea, maybe there is a cleaner way. Janko___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 the vote open for a long time. The voting time is a separate discussion all together. In principle, we could replace the approved/rejected status with supported/not-supported. When a mapper is looking for a tag, he will see not only the amount of uses, but also the level of support (and also for the negative votes—the reasoning). This will make him able to decide whether or not he wants to use that tag. We can therefore do three things now: - Leave everything as is and continue the discussion. - Correct the math by voting for my proposal and then continue the discussion - Develop a new formula first. The current situation is that there are open proposals, so in my opinion it would help to at least resolve the unclarity we agreed on. So just to repeat: I agree with the whole argument about the drawbacks of the current discussion and voting system. But until we have a better one let's at least make the current one not self-contradictory. The discussion may take forever and not actually result in anything. Let's make the first change for the better now, and then try to make it great. Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 watch the chatter and make up their minds accordingly ? Or do people who are not tagging list subscribers watch the wiki and vote when something interesting appears ? Many people lack the time to watch the chatter, let alone participate. Mailing lists such as this one demand a lot of time. How is someone who has a daytime job and a family and who goes around mapping in his spare time supposed to also spend 2 hours a day participating in mailing lists and web forums? That's simply impossible! For the same reason, I think that proposals should stay in proposed state for at least 2 months, and that voting should also be extended to at least one month, unless the topic of the proposal is urgent for some reason. 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 very good proposal, because it lists various possible tags so that people can compare and make up their mind. A 2-week voting period after a 2-week discussion period obviously would have messed it up. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?
On 18/03/2015 11:58, Richard Z. wrote: so should for example the OpenSeaMap tagging for bridges become deprecated? Not deprecated, but considered on a case-by-case basis. It is a question of whether important navigation information would be deleted if the seamark tags were removed. In the case of bridges, the safe air draft and beam are important attributes that should be kept, but a bridge that is absent those seamark attribute tags need not carry the seamark:type=bridge tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 count like negative votes. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 12:44 GMT+01:00 jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me: Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema? If it is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not amenity=toilet and access=private? according to the current schema you cannot tag like this (and I don't want to change it). amenity=toilets is for a toilet open to the public. point. You cannot add a private=only or access=private or similar to change its meaning. That's very similar to amenity=drinking_water drinkable=no, don't do it. It's an oxymoron. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 12:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: the operator doesn't tell you anything about access rights, property structure, publicness etc. It is about the entity _operating_ a feature / object / thing. It doesn't, but it tells you who decides on those things. That's as much detail an average mapper is going to get. This is private (private:amenity=*), but if you want to use it, ask the operator (operator=*). There are lots of public things that are operated by private companies, even more if it is about open to the public like in the case of toilets. You can tag an operator on public items too, but it's not as useful as with private objects because you don't care who operates it as long as you can use it at will. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
2015-03-18 8:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and would recommend using it rather than This proposal has been accepted +1 (thousand) I already decided some time ago, that I will not put any of my proposal up for voting any more, but instead allow mappers to add themselves to a list of supporters. This feels much more osm-ish to me. If you like a proposal, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it - and preferable come up with something better. br, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
Am 18.03.2015 um 09:26 schrieb Warin: On 18/03/2015 5:02 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.comwrote: A separate debate is how to increase voting participation. making pending votes more visible in the editing tools could help. Just some idea: Translate the proposal in German, French, Spanish and Russian, ... (the largest communities outside the English speaking countries) Let people vote and discuss in their own language. Sum up the votes from the different pages. -1 It is a good idea. The main problem is that an issue in one place may have been resoled in another. So there may need to be some cross flow between the discussions when required/requested? The secondary issue is the translation. I'm afraid I'd be using one of those computer translators to do it .. thus there will be some amusement .. not a bad thing .. it can be cleaned up once done. +1 Not everyone is willing/capable to discuss in a foreign language. Yep. And thus OSM misses out on probably some very good ideas. And this may well encourage others to make more tags. So, we need some mediators to help to break the language barrier. People willing to help with English or even take over ideas and make proposals. I could understand if a proposal is first written in a language different than English and later translated into English but the wiki itself needs lots of work on much more important pages than translating proposals in multiple languages. One thing for creators of proposals which are not voted on and everybody else would be to make the transfer to an official wiki page once the tag is in major use. Then translation can start. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
Am 18.03.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Martin Vonwald: 2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via TagInfo. This in fact would be a very helpful information! Although - please everyone correct me if I'm wrong - the numbers from taginfo are not what we want: as far as I know, taginfo shows the number of mappers, that added or changed(!) an object with a given tag. Much more meaningful would be the number of mappers, that actually added a specific tag. This is much harder to determine and even this number would be biased, because of way-splits. Exactly, you need to use more of the history, as how do you tread replaced objects like node - area ? The first author of an object does not have to be the one who introduced the tag. Seems to be really complex. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
2015-03-18 12:30 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right. Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets, waste_disposals, and so on. the operator doesn't tell you anything about access rights, property structure, publicness etc. It is about the entity _operating_ a feature / object / thing. There are lots of public things that are operated by private companies, even more if it is about open to the public like in the case of toilets. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On 18 March 2015 at 08:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. +1 A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via TagInfo. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:31:12PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 17/03/2015 16:06, Brad Neuhauser wrote: Is there something I'm missing? No, you have spotted the fact that (as always!) that the documentation is unfinished. I had done it on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/INT-1_Cross_Reference but I need to add notes/links on the other pages to direct people to the appropriate tag:* and key:* Wiki pages. so should for example the OpenSeaMap tagging for bridges become deprecated? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
I agree with Martin on not changing the definition of tags where public access, or a subset of the public (customers) is inherent in the tags definition through tag modifiers. But everyone is envisioning a future where information about private facilities would eventually become part of OSM - either by those private entities or their employees officially or unofficially adding the data, a person or visitor from the public adding it because it is visible, or a mapper adding it in for completeness, such as for indoor space mapping. Although currently impractical for rendering, these kind of issues will pop up as long as there is no schema to handle these circumstances (beyond saying no), so we should try to at least come up with a tagging scheme for purely private objects if mappers insist on tagging them, as simply appending private: on existing public tags is not preferred, though the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything in the world again. When it comes to visible facilities, especially commercial and industrial facilities of access, we can and do easily map and tag many things with the current tags that are absolutely private, so to speak - industrial facilities, private roads, etc - but there is no equivalent tags for certain defined by public access tags like toilets, water fountains, etc: Maybe those amenities that are defined by their public access nature will eventually need a private counterpart. Javbw On Mar 18, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-18 12:44 GMT+01:00 jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me: Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema? If it is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not amenity=toilet and access=private? according to the current schema you cannot tag like this (and I don't want to change it). amenity=toilets is for a toilet open to the public. point. You cannot add a private=only or access=private or similar to change its meaning. That's very similar to amenity=drinking_water drinkable=no, don't do it. It's an oxymoron. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
2015-03-18 8:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. somehow they are lasting. The definition that gets voted is typically the same that will be in use for some time. Then there will be objects in the database which are tagged according to that definition, and trying to change the definition will likely provoke resistance by those that have been using the old definition. Only in a few cases there will be so many problems that people will happily change what is there. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via TagInfo. This in fact would be a very helpful information! Although - please everyone correct me if I'm wrong - the numbers from taginfo are not what we want: as far as I know, taginfo shows the number of mappers, that added or changed(!) an object with a given tag. Much more meaningful would be the number of mappers, that actually added a specific tag. This is much harder to determine and even this number would be biased, because of way-splits. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?
Having lived in Russia and Germany for quite a while, I can confirm that the language barrier definitely plays a strong role. A lot of people in Russia will never use the English-language internet at all. I think the same holds for France, Spain and Italy, to a lesser extent for Germany. In the Netherlands where I live now the average level of English is very good; however a lot of people (even working in international companies) still barely speak English and will definitely find it hard to participate in non-Dutch discussions. Regarding the culture, I don't think it makes participation difficult due to understanding. However, each culture will have mapping-relevant differences. In that respect, it would be difficult for people from other cultures to follow. A good example would be a Russian-OSM discussion of how to tag street names in terms of the word order. It would be irrelevant in English or German, but in Russian you can say Улица Пушкина and Пушкина улица. Both are perfectly understandable for a Russian speaker, the difference is also clear and relevant for sorting and search. However both are translated the same into English or German. Besides that, some things probably only exist in some countries. Say, discussing volcano tagging in German may be less relevant than doing the same in Icelandic. Note that now we are approaching the OSM internationalization consequences rather than just the question of mailing list discussions. Cheers, Kotya On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:44 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Marc, do you find the English speakers here anything less than supporting ? What about use of expressions or references to popular culture, does that make it harder do you think ? No, I have no problems with the English speaking community myself, but I'm lucky to be rather fluent in English. And I learn new words as I follow the mailing lists :-). On the other hand, I also follow lists in German and French, but I am very reluctant to participate in those discussions, as my language skills are not good enough for that. So I imagine that this is the case for other people and English. | And thats a pretty good point. But to fork off each discussion onto a | new language list would fracture the discussion. We'd need a person totally agree with that. But right now, you also see that proposals are made in local communities that never make it to the general mailing list. The Lübeck bicycle tagging scheme comes to mind. and look at the wiki pages in German. I took a lot of historic or animal related tagging from there, because there is no English page for those topics. Unfortunately I have no solution for this, I can only regret that participation to the tagging mailing list is for some limited by language knowledge. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
2015-03-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. +1 to all that. While I think that voting is very usefull, I think the whole concept of accepting a proposal (all the related arguments about voter thresholds) should be scraped entirely. Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages : * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) * proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current list of supporters/opponents) * ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe using a used/encouraged/discouraged by link template * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a change in the proposal changes their opinion * proposals should only be end-of-lifed if there is near-unanimous opposition and near-zero actual usage This should clarify the old question of whether the wiki does/should document usage or intent. It'll allow competing proposals to coexist more visibly. It keeps the interesting opinion poll use of voting, while removing the obnoxious proposal is ready ! vote now so that we can start using it ! calls. 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. Full support for this at least from my side. br, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 more //unanimous approval votes or 10 or more total votes with more than 74 % approval...//./ This will not change anything in terms of the ongoing discussion of /how/ the approval influences other things. So the discussion can continue. But we'd introduce some mathematical logic in the process. +1 I think it's not ideal that this would make it easier to accept proposals with very few voters (e.g. a 8:2 majority), so I would prefer a higher quorum (e.g. 15). But in my opinion it's still acceptable, and better than no change. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?
Am 18.03.2015 um 13:17 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com: Note that now we are approaching the OSM internationalization consequences rather than just the question of mailing list discussions. I believe it is generally difficult to decide on English tags when you don't speak English. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
Am 18.03.2015 um 14:14 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages : * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) it is impossible to see from taginfo what a tag is used for, and for what it can't be used. You only get statistics how much it is used * proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current list of supporters/opponents) +1 * ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe using a used/encouraged/discouraged by link template +1 * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively I find this difficult. If I start using a tag in the belief that it means a, and after two years people decide that this was a bad idea and now it should mean only a*, am I to review all my previous edits? Do we really need to change tag definitions, or would it be more sustainable to require new sub tags or alternative tags when the semantics should change or be amended? * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a change in the proposal changes their opinion see previous comment also, I'd probably have to spend all day checking tag definition pages then ;-) * proposals should only be end-of-lifed if there is near-unanimous opposition and near-zero actual usage +1, if at all. Near zero usage should be 10 cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
Am 18.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: simply appending private: on existing public tags is not preferred, though the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything in the world again. I think prefixing private: is a viable idea, it can be easily filtered out when you don't want these, and it avoids misinterpretations cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
On 18/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) it is impossible to see from taginfo what a tag is used for, and for what it can't be used. You only get statistics how much it is used * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively I find this difficult. If I start using a tag in the belief that it means a, and after two years people decide that this was a bad idea and now it should mean only a*, am I to review all my previous edits? Yes, being objective and figuring out exactly what the current usage is can be daunting, and taginfo is sometimes of little use (landuse=forest vs natural=wood for example). But I think having a stated goal of objectivity is still better than the current situation, where some key pages document values that have never been used. Being able to trust the content of a key/tag page without systematically having to double-check taginfo and other sources would be a welcome improvement. Do we really need to change tag definitions, or would it be more sustainable to require new sub tags or alternative tags when the semantics should change or be amended? We should certainly aim for backward compatibility when coming up with new tags. It s not easy, we haven´t always succeeded. But that´s a different topic. * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a change in the proposal changes their opinion see previous comment Yes, asking to watch pages is asking a lot. But I´d like to move away from the formal drafted-proposed-accepted/rejected workflow, because I think it just can´t work in OSM. That implies that proposals should be able to evolve a bit over time. But if you make significant changes after many people have voted, it´s probably better to create a new proposal instead, to avoid backward-incompatibilities. also, I'd probably have to spend all day checking tag definition pages then Not anymore than you watch actual OSM data, since tag definition pages are supposed to reflect actual usage. So my suggestion should actually reduce the need for page-watching compared to current workflow. * proposals should only be end-of-lifed if there is near-unanimous opposition and near-zero actual usage +1, if at all. Near zero usage should be 10 I don't like to give numerical thresholds, but yeah. Another option for end-of-lifeing a proposal is if a newer proposal replaces it in a backward-compatible maner. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On 18.03.2015 14:36, fly wrote: Am 18.03.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Martin Vonwald: 2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via TagInfo. This in fact would be a very helpful information! Although - please everyone correct me if I'm wrong - the numbers from taginfo are not what we want: as far as I know, taginfo shows the number of mappers, that added or changed(!) an object with a given tag. Much more meaningful would be the number of mappers, that actually added a specific tag. This is much harder to determine and even this number would be biased, because of way-splits. Exactly, you need to use more of the history, as how do you tread replaced objects like node - area ? That would be easy if editors had implemented the origin=* key as proposed in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/origin. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways
Hi, Am Montag, den 16.03.2015, 20:04 -0400 schrieb Richard Welty: as i go forward mapping raceways in north america, one of the issues is modeling multi configuration courses such as Watkins Glen and Lime Rock. one solution is to use route relations, and add a new route type, route=raceway There is type=circuit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Circuit example (Monaco) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148194 It is used about 60 times in OSM. in this model, i would use forward and backward roles where necessary. right now the best example of this i have is of my model of the Thompson road courses over the years at Thompson Speedway in Connecticut, which is in OHM. some sections of the raceway were used in different directions in different variations of the course, hence the need for forward backward. Is in the proposal, have a look at it. Regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways
On 3/18/15 2:20 PM, Werner Hoch wrote: There is type=circuit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Circuit example (Monaco) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148194 It is used about 60 times in OSM. that's not bad. i'd probably want to add some other roles, perhaps paddock false_grid (or their UK equivalents as i'm not sure if they use the same terms.) anyone know why this proposal hasn't gone forward? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com 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 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 elsewhere, the discussion process accompanying the voting is valuable for the tagging improvement. There would be less interest in the discussion *and improvement* if we remove the competition and the question will my proposal get approved by the community? 2) When a potential user sees the positive and negative votes (which, ideally, summarize the discussion), he may decide for himself whether or not to use a tag. If there is no voting, there is no such digest of the in-depth consideration by those who took care to get involved. I see however a problem in the fact that the proposal page, with its voting section, is not present in the final feature page. There is just an approved status, and most people wouldn't care to take a look at *how* the thing was approved. An 8:2 vote thus results in exactly the same perception of a tag as a 50:0 one. The current system of a clear separation of the proposal and feature pages actually makes the closed voting necessary*. That *is why we need to agree on the numbers. Taking into account everything said in the (now multiple) threads on the topic here, would it make sense to *change the current proposal/voting mechanism like follows*? - Author proposes a feature as now. - RFC period with simultaneous page revision follows - Opinions for and against are expressed in the discussions and summarized at the top of the page (e.g. advantages and disadvantages of a tag) together with the current usage - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined mathematically if needed), this very page is converted into a feature page. It is never approved or rejected, but the opinions are made clear. - People can add their concerns later just by editing the page. Thus there is no closing of the proposal phase. A feature can even get deprecated with time if the usage is low and too many issues became apparent. This would make discussions a bit more relaxed and positive. The advantage of such approach would be: - Adherence to the wiki idea, when the community develops a good page by working on it more than by discussing it; - Matching the OSM logic where numbers matter - The majority of concerns regarding the discussion, voting, and approval/rejection mechanism are addressed - The system is even i18n-friendly, because such a top-of-the-page summary can be easily translated, unlike a discussion in a mailing list (potentially several of them). Please comment. Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com 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 proposals.* Can you explain how it fails to capture *competing proposals *or* subsequent proposals*? Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
To make it clear: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com 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 yesterday. I see something like moving the page to a different namespace or removing a proposal status. Not changing the content or rewriting the page. A good proposal should already be nicely usable as documentation of the desired tagging schema. Fully agree. Note also that the feature - proposal relation is not one to one but many to many. Any nontrivial proposal will link to multiple tags, and a particular tag may link back to multiple competing proposals Yes, and the combined pages can be linked just like that. Feature pages and proposals should be writen in parallel, not one after the other. I am promoting writing a single feature proposal page, which, after the initial discussion, is made just a feature page. So nothing is written one after another. Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 participate in politics, but have clear political opinions, and they will tell their opinions whenever they can do it without effort. It's much easier to leave a comment in the wiki on the fly than to continously participate in a maling list reading hundreds of messages every week. Leaving comments and voting open for years won't change that .. it may simply confuse them as they want to use a tag That's fine. People should be encouraged to use their brains. .. if it is 'proposed' or 'voting' status wise they may be discouraged from using it. They use it unless they find better alternatives. 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. There were some proposals where I wanted to vote, but I missed the short voting timeframe. The apiary proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/apiary Promotes one tag and list other tags that could be used .. It has been in comments stage for a few years .. abandoned? I think that the abandoned status should be renamed, and that its colour should be gray or yellow instead of red. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: I like the incentive to document the use .. as undocumented tags can be removed .. maybe this could be automated ;-)Say 6 months of undocumented presence = automatic deletion. A warning meassage to the user may provide documentation, ay after 3 months? Flames here... I think that's carrying it a bit far, and too close to the central planning model. I think it would be sufficient to think of undocumented tags as resembling unsupported APIs: yes, you can use them, and they'll probably work most of the time, but they could break or change without warning. If we had a culture where properly documenting tags was the rule rather than the exception, and we had worked through most of the huge backlog of undocumented tags that now exist, *AND* we were happy with the state of affairs, maybe we could think about purging in that way, but I think that would be premature to consider. The 'peer review' I currently see as the comments/voting process. I think it does help with improving tags provided suggestions for improvements are made rather than demands, commands and derogatory comments. Offering a problem is only one side of the coin .. there needs to be a solution too. I try to provide both. Good point. I don't have a concrete process suggestion, but maintaining a collegial and constructive tone in discussions is important. A lot of what people have been saying on this list about resolving votes, abstentions, coming to consensus and so forth could be applied to on-wiki discussions of proposed changes. My proposal was aimed more at the fact that there are very few social incentives to use the wiki right now; the approval process is a mess because it's only used by people willing to take a lot of time and energy for little concrete gain. Adding new values should be the same process as adding a new key, maybe it can be shorter in time? Simply adding things to the wiki does not get the attention of people .. notifying the group gets attention that may lead to improvement. And puting things to the group before going to the wiki is better as basic ideas may be discussed rather than going into a full detail ... things like this discussion don't fit well on the wiki. I think it's important that editing the wiki to incorporate a new key or value be very easy to do, otherwise we start sliding back towards a central planning model. 90% of the documentation will probably be of interest only to a few mappers and won't get changed much after being created. We want to let people do that and go map without trouble. However, if you're changing something important or popular, it's probably best to change the wiki and see what people say before you start adding it to the map. Right now, we don't notice things on the wiki because we're socialized to consider it unimportant. However, pages like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:NewPages, maybe with a little filtering, could easily be used to track new key creations; maybe a bot could even monitor it and send a digest to a mailing list regularly. Discussion could take place at the discussion/talk pages in the wiki: e.g., I could say at Talk:Railway I think we should add new value xyz, this is how it fits with the current scheme, what do you think? If on-wiki discussion was the norm, people interested in railroads would have that page on their watchlist, they would see my change when I made it, and could reply. Maybe we could also have a forum on-wiki where people could announce I have a new idea, comment on talk page ... if it interests you. I think the talk pages work OK for that, but I admit that I have been brainwashed by almost a decade of Wikipedia editing, maybe other people do not like to discuss there. -- Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
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 and aggregate score is shown. For some time (?). Obviously they can also edit content to say why. Now, we don't have that content freeze when voting formally starts. Is it a problem that I click 'like' and some important change is made to content later ? David On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 23:57 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: Ahhm, not sure how it is different, but never mind. I will be happy if we all agree on a good solution, and I definitely don't claim the authorship of all the good ideas that have popped up here over the last couple of days. I just tried to summarize it in something that looked to me like a working solution. Dan, thanks for making a good illustration :) Quite a good one really. It meets my criteria of giving a new mapper some guidance on what he/she should use. Good to hear :) Add in taginfo data. Yes: Opinions for and against are expressed in the discussions and summarized at the top of the page (e.g. advantages and disadvantages of a tag) together with the current usage And maybe a list of competing approaches so, again, its clear to a new user what the options are. It clearly belongs a see also section IMO. I do think we'd need to have some (usage determined ?) end point however. Who is going to register their approval of, eg, highway= this far down the track ? I think data consumers also need a bit of certainty too. End of what? Usage, as discussed in another thread, is a vague criterion. Two tags may have a full support of the community, one having thousands of uses and another (for a rare feature) ten. For data consumers---definitely yes, and I suggest it being the moment when we remove the proposal status, so the page becomes a feature page. The moment can be when the discussion calms down (which can even be defined mathematically if needed). Sorry guys, no more spamming today :) Hopefully we'll converge to something good, so these discussions won't be in vain :) Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
2015-03-18 21:58 GMT+00:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
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. It is never approved or rejected, but the opinions are made
clear.
No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
objectively determine what the discussion concluded. If we absolutely
must measure data in the database, how can we do otherwise in our
processes ?
About the only way would be to count up the emails for/against. And then
discount the early ones as they would apply to early drafts of the
proposal. Try and allow for the fence sitters
No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct
members but it is necessary.
It has nothing to do with politically correct - what a curious idea!
It's about designing the mechanism so that it does what we want it to
do. Lots of people repeatedly say that it doesn't. We don't all agree
what's broken about it...
I like the general approach Kotya proposes. It seems correct that we
want to keep the positive aspects of voting (discussion, refinement,
in one focal place, with some straw poll of community acceptance)
but the biggest issue people seem concerned about here is that
converting that straw poll into a blunt approved/rejected is not
helpful because it conflates some very different situations.
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}} and {{no}} with something like 76%
support [out of 98 opinions]. The poll would give a quick guide to
mappers, and encourage others to chip in with their opinion - any user
could add or remove their {{yes}}/{{no}} at any point.
Dan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces
On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 18.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: simply appending private: on existing public tags is not preferred, though the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything in the world again. I think prefixing private: is a viable idea, it can be easily filtered out when you don't want these, and it avoids misinterpretations Once again, I failed to read your email correctly. I somehow missed the distinction between private:*=* and an adding access=private. Yea, the private:*=* completely changes the definition of the tag (like construction: or abandoned:), rather than trying to add a new meaning on with access=private or private=yes onto an existing tag. I have been living in Japan for just 4 years, and seeing how my Japanese is crap, you’d think my English level would stay pretty high… but it is disappearing at an alarming rate… Maybe it’s just teaching the English equivalent of primary school classes every day…. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
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}} and {{no}} with something like 76%
support [out of 98 opinions]. The poll would give a quick guide to
mappers, and encourage others to chip in with their opinion - any user
could add or remove their {{yes}}/{{no}} at any point.
Certainly a different approach ! Quite a good one really. It meets my
criteria of giving a new mapper some guidance on what he/she should
use.
Add in taginfo data.
And maybe a list of competing approaches so, again, its clear to a new
user what the options are.
I do think we'd need to have some (usage determined ?) end point
however. Who is going to register their approval of, eg, highway= this
far down the track ?
I think data consumers also need a bit of certainty too.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
On 19/03/2015 8:57 AM, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:14 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com mailto:molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. +1 to all that. While I think that voting is very usefull, I think the whole concept of accepting a proposal (all the related arguments about voter thresholds) should be scraped entirely. Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages : * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) * proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current list of supporters/opponents) * ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe using a used/encouraged/discouraged by link template * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a change in the proposal changes their opinion * proposals should only be end-of-lifed if there is near-unanimous opposition and near-zero actual usage This should clarify the old question of whether the wiki does/should document usage or intent. It'll allow competing proposals to coexist more visibly. It keeps the interesting opinion poll use of voting, while removing the obnoxious proposal is ready ! vote now so that we can start using it ! calls. That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory proposals with no incentive to resolve them. I have a modest proposal to make on the tagging/approval workflow. (For readers not familiar with the idiom, it's a proposal put forward to spur discussion rather than a serious policy recommendation.) I feel that many people's reaction is going to be No! That's ludicrous and against the spirit of OSM! but I'd like to hear *why* you think that. Let's start with a few principles. Tags are here to convey information about objects being mapped. Because we map a wide variety of features and serve many different interests, the process of tag creation needs to be fairly egalitarian. No matter how intelligent or well-meaning, a small central board can't design all necessary tags from scratch (wisdom of crowds, etc.) However, in order to serve their purpose of conveying information, tags also need to be documented. If only one person understands what a tag means, it really hasn't conveyed information. They're weakly self-documenting, but the meaning of a given key-value pair may be ambiguous or obscure; it's vastly preferable to have written documentation in the wiki, in whatever language, to clarify the mapper's intentions. Perhaps somewhat more controversially, while we want an egalitarian process for tag creation, I would propose that we also want new tags to undergo some form of peer review, if possible. Feedback from others can improve the design of the original proposer. So, my modest proposal: if you want to create a new key, add a new page to the wiki. If you want to create a new value for a key, add it to the existing page for the key. If someone sees that edit and wants to change it, they can change it; if you object, the two of you can discuss it on the talk page. Tags used in the database that are not documented in the wiki (here comes the outrageous part!) are treated as provisional; they can be added or removed at will, by any editor, mechanically or otherwise. Essentially, this serves two purposes: 1) We have very strong social norms to avoid damaging other people's data. However, these norms protect not only good data (where the meaning of the data is shared and readily available) but data which is only understood by the original mapper, if anyone (essentially, private mapping). (cf. this recent message: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-March/014445.html) The protection of data becomes part of a reciprocal contract: if you want your data protected, you need to tell us what it means. 2) It leverages the rich toolset on wiki to let people keep track of how tags are being expanded and redefined. MediaWiki has features like Special:Newpages, watchlists, related changes, and so forth which would make it easier to keep track of new ideas about tagging. It's much trickier to do this if you have to monitor changesets on the map, even when aggregated by tools of taginfo. OK, flame away! What don't you like? I like the incentive to document the use .. as undocumented tags can be removed .. maybe this could be automated ;-) Say 6 months of undocumented presence =
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 votes, you'll find that I always pointed out my reasons for my abstention. That's what gives sense to these votes. The same applies to negative votes. A plain no vote is not helpful in any way. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
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 sort of visual widget on the wiki
page which summarised the {{yes}} and {{no}} with something like 76%
support [out of 98 opinions]. The poll would give a quick guide to
mappers, and encourage others to chip in with their opinion - any user
could add or remove their {{yes}}/{{no}} at any point.
Certainly a different approach !
Ahhm, not sure how it is different, but never mind. I will be happy if we
all agree on a good solution, and I definitely don't claim the authorship
of all the good ideas that have popped up here over the last couple of
days. I just tried to summarize it in something that looked to me like a
working solution. Dan, thanks for making a good illustration :)
Quite a good one really. It meets my
criteria of giving a new mapper some guidance on what he/she should
use.
Good to hear :)
Add in taginfo data.
Yes: *Opinions for and against are expressed in the discussions and
summarized at the top of the page (e.g. advantages and disadvantages of
a tag) together with the current usage*
And maybe a list of competing approaches so, again, its clear to a new
user what the options are.
It clearly belongs a see also section IMO.
I do think we'd need to have some (usage determined ?) end point
however. Who is going to register their approval of, eg, highway= this
far down the track ?
I think data consumers also need a bit of certainty too.
End of what?
Usage, as discussed in another thread, is a vague criterion. Two tags may
have a full support of the community, one having thousands of uses and
another (for a rare feature) ten.
For data consumers---definitely yes, and I suggest it being the moment when
we remove the proposal status, so the page becomes a feature page. The
moment can be w*hen the discussion calms down (which can even be defined
mathematically if needed**)*.
Sorry guys, no more spamming today :) Hopefully we'll converge to something
good, so these discussions won't be in vain :)
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
On 18/03/2015, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com wrote: That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory proposals with no incentive to resolve them. Are you afraid of wiki bloat ? I don't think it'd be much of an issue. Proposals that fall into disuse will naturally lose their links from feature pages and disappear from public view. We already have a collection of old contradictory proposals that have never been officially rejected. It doesn't hurt much, they sometimes come up in a search, but since we probably never want to fully delete them from the wiki anyway... So, my modest proposal: if you want to create a new key, add a new page to the wiki. If you want to create a new value for a key, add it to the existing page for the key. If someone sees that edit and wants to change it, they can change it; if you object, the two of you can discuss it on the talk page. Tags used in the database that are not documented in the wiki (here comes the outrageous part!) are treated as provisional; they can be added or removed at will, by any editor, mechanically or otherwise. Tempting, but I don't think it'll fly, for a few reasons: * We've got a huge backlog of frequently-used non-documented keys to work through : http://taginfo.osm.org/reports/frequently_used_keys_without_wiki_page * For good or ill, a lot of contributors don't (want to) use the wiki. Turning it into a mandatory part of osm just won't work from a social point of view * You're raising the bar quite a bit for the creation of new tags, without even improving the quality of tags in the process. * Suggesting that it's ok to undo somebody's work because he didn't document it is a recipe for nasty conflicts. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 should disappear. Mappers looking for a suitable tag can see it, decide after reviewing its flaws to use it. And it may well become a widely used tag. My guess is the proposer was disappointed in the initial RFC response and decided he'd not get the votes. Remember, being voted in is just one way a proposal becomes 'approved'. Wide usage is the other (main one). Having that proposal listed gives users firstly, some guidance and secondly, a chance to decide for themselves. It is not easy to get usage numbers for many unapproved tags, perhaps thats worth addressing ? David The apiary proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/apiary Promotes one tag and list other tags that could be used .. It has been in comments stage for a few years .. abandoned? Sorry but I see little point in leaving a proposal open for long periods of time .. all tags will evolve over time .. no mater what the status 'inuse', 'approved' etc still means they may change over time .. leaving them as proposed does little for that long term change process. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:30 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/03/2015, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com wrote: That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory proposals with no incentive to resolve them. Are you afraid of wiki bloat ? I don't think it'd be much of an issue. Proposals that fall into disuse will naturally lose their links from feature pages and disappear from public view. We already have a collection of old contradictory proposals that have never been officially rejected. It doesn't hurt much, they sometimes come up in a search, but since we probably never want to fully delete them from the wiki anyway... Well, we should encourage people to try to reconcile proposals and agree on tagging schemes, although there will be some cases where we agree to disagree and document that. How hard we push from that is largely a question of procedure, I suppose. So, my modest proposal: if you want to create a new key, add a new page to the wiki. If you want to create a new value for a key, add it to the existing page for the key. If someone sees that edit and wants to change it, they can change it; if you object, the two of you can discuss it on the talk page. Tags used in the database that are not documented in the wiki (here comes the outrageous part!) are treated as provisional; they can be added or removed at will, by any editor, mechanically or otherwise. Tempting, but I don't think it'll fly, for a few reasons: * We've got a huge backlog of frequently-used non-documented keys to work through : http://taginfo.osm.org/reports/frequently_used_keys_without_wiki_page Yeah. We'd have to have a lengthy amnesty period (= 1 year), with targeted notifications, challenges to write documentation, etc., before making a change in policy like this. * For good or ill, a lot of contributors don't (want to) use the wiki. Turning it into a mandatory part of osm just won't work from a social point of view * You're raising the bar quite a bit for the creation of new tags, without even improving the quality of tags in the process. Is that because using the wiki is intrinsically terribly hard (admittedly, having unified login for the wiki and the database proper would be nice), or is this a side effect of the fact that there's very little incentive to use it? People (hopefully) use tags more than once: slapping down a sentence or two in the wiki on the occasions you need to invent one doesn't strike me as an extraordinarily high bar. I don't think we can get everyone who needs a new tag to submit high-quality, well-thought-out proposals from the beginning. But making their ideas publicly visible via the wiki should get more feedback on the tags and sooner. As it stands today, bad or incomprehensible tagging can fly under the radar until it's so widespread it can't readily be corrected. * Suggesting that it's ok to undo somebody's work because he didn't document it is a recipe for nasty conflicts. See my caveats above my reply to Warin: I wouldn't want to launch search-and-destroy missions against undocumented tagging. But if there's really a serious conflict over how to use certain tags, it's going to manifest *somehow*. Because, under this proposal, documentation on-wiki provides a positional advantage, I would expect these conflicts to flow away from the database towards the wiki, which IMO is more transparent than having them buried in map changesets. It seems like the best way to get your way under the current system is not to waste energy on the wiki and tag as energetically as possible according to whatever scheme suits you. That's not entirely a bad thing--in the big picture, adding to the map is what's important--but it's a recipe for perpetual semantic confusion and ambiguity within the database. -- Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Mechanical Tagging Proposal - dump_station - conditional
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:43 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 18/03/2015 20:21, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: For your comment is the following proposal is to consolidate sanitary dump station tagging semi-mechanically: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_ Nesbitt#DISCUSSION_--_Sanitary_Station_Retagging Please don't do this. No-one outside the tagging list is going to understand what on earth a Sanitary Dump Station is. Cheers, Andy You are invited to participate in the discussion on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station, regarding the naming of this tag. A long RFC period was used to try and collect the maximum number of views. A long list of candidate names was tried, among them the one with the most UK colour: Elsan Point. Whilst there was no perfect answer to be found, consensus settled on the tag name chosen. Elsan Point was the most British of the options, in keeping with OSM's history, but as a brand name there were objectors from elsewhere on the planet. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote: Not deprecated, but considered on a case-by-case basis. It is a question of whether important navigation information would be deleted if the seamark tags were removed. In the case of bridges, the safe air draft and beam are important attributes that should be kept, but a bridge that is absent those seamark attribute tags need not carry the seamark:type=bridge tag. Seamark tags could appear on otherwise OSM standard objects. That would bring the two tagging systems closer together: and allow orderly migration to a single set of tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: It is however not true that tagging votes are an important core element of how we work; we can do perfectly fine without. Even if certain things were tagged differently in different parts of the word, that would not break OpenStreetMap. -1 I disagree with the sentiment. The value of the vote *itself* is minimal. But the value of the voting *process* is very high. Broad perspectives during the draft/rfc and voting phase can vastly improve tagging, and set a pattern others will follow. --- Even really bad tagging ideas (such as denotation=cluster) get widely copied. The initial patterns set matter, such as cow tracks lead to dirt roads, lead to railways, then settlements and main streets. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel
How about this: A road with a private frequency of 154.635 and a squelch tone of 156.7 Frequency= 154.635 MHz Frequency:squelch= 156.7 Hz A road with that uses CB channel 5 Frequency= 27.015 MHz Frequency:channel: CB 5 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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' problem, some even have a system of not viewing post by someone they don't like! My experience suggests that mailing list that go to a forum find more activity than in the past. Getting 'good' activity remains a problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:14 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. +1 to all that. While I think that voting is very usefull, I think the whole concept of accepting a proposal (all the related arguments about voter thresholds) should be scraped entirely. Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages : * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) * proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current list of supporters/opponents) * ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe using a used/encouraged/discouraged by link template * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a change in the proposal changes their opinion * proposals should only be end-of-lifed if there is near-unanimous opposition and near-zero actual usage This should clarify the old question of whether the wiki does/should document usage or intent. It'll allow competing proposals to coexist more visibly. It keeps the interesting opinion poll use of voting, while removing the obnoxious proposal is ready ! vote now so that we can start using it ! calls. That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory proposals with no incentive to resolve them. I have a modest proposal to make on the tagging/approval workflow. (For readers not familiar with the idiom, it's a proposal put forward to spur discussion rather than a serious policy recommendation.) I feel that many people's reaction is going to be No! That's ludicrous and against the spirit of OSM! but I'd like to hear *why* you think that. Let's start with a few principles. Tags are here to convey information about objects being mapped. Because we map a wide variety of features and serve many different interests, the process of tag creation needs to be fairly egalitarian. No matter how intelligent or well-meaning, a small central board can't design all necessary tags from scratch (wisdom of crowds, etc.) However, in order to serve their purpose of conveying information, tags also need to be documented. If only one person understands what a tag means, it really hasn't conveyed information. They're weakly self-documenting, but the meaning of a given key-value pair may be ambiguous or obscure; it's vastly preferable to have written documentation in the wiki, in whatever language, to clarify the mapper's intentions. Perhaps somewhat more controversially, while we want an egalitarian process for tag creation, I would propose that we also want new tags to undergo some form of peer review, if possible. Feedback from others can improve the design of the original proposer. So, my modest proposal: if you want to create a new key, add a new page to the wiki. If you want to create a new value for a key, add it to the existing page for the key. If someone sees that edit and wants to change it, they can change it; if you object, the two of you can discuss it on the talk page. Tags used in the database that are not documented in the wiki (here comes the outrageous part!) are treated as provisional; they can be added or removed at will, by any editor, mechanically or otherwise. Essentially, this serves two purposes: 1) We have very strong social norms to avoid damaging other people's data. However, these norms protect not only good data (where the meaning of the data is shared and readily available) but data which is only understood by the original mapper, if anyone (essentially, private mapping). (cf. this recent message: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-March/014445.html) The protection of data becomes part of a reciprocal contract: if you want your data protected, you need to tell us what it means. 2) It leverages the rich toolset on wiki to let people keep track of how tags are being expanded and redefined. MediaWiki has features like Special:Newpages, watchlists, related changes, and so forth which would make it easier to keep track of new ideas about tagging. It's much trickier to do this if you have to monitor changesets on the map, even when aggregated by tools of taginfo. OK, flame away! What don't you like? -- Chris Hoess ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridge Parapets
This sounds like it would be connected to the man_made=bridge proposals to map bridges as polygons. Maybe representing the parapets as lines that share nodes with part of the man_made=bridge polygon? -- Chris Hoess On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: It would appear that the rendering for a bridge might include the parapet. Much of my local mapping however includes barriers along roads. These are generally connected to the bridge parapet. It would seem reasonable to therefore have a seperate way for each bridge paparet that links the barriers either side of the bridge. Perhaps, barrier=wall, wall=parapet. Parapet is however used in more that one context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet If bridge parapets were to be mapped would they therefore need a more distinct name in this context bridge_parapet of should there be some sort of relation between the highway segment of the bridge and its associated parapets? At the moment I just leave the barriers hanging but it doesn't seem like a very satisfactory approach to mapping given they are attached to the bridge. Regards Dudley ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com 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 elsewhere, the discussion process accompanying the voting is valuable for the tagging improvement. There would be less interest in the discussion *and improvement* if we remove the competition and the question will my proposal get approved by the community? 2) When a potential user sees the positive and negative votes (which, ideally, summarize the discussion), he may decide for himself whether or not to use a tag. If there is no voting, there is no such digest of the in-depth consideration by those who took care to get involved. Yes, I started my get rid of the approval process suggestion by a votes are usefull statement. We can/should keep votes because : * They trigger more discussion on the proposal * They are rewarding for the proposal author (even negative votes show that people took an interest) * They help gauge wether the proposal is generaly thought by the community to be a good one However we should get rid of the approval process because : * It gives a false sense of authority to the decision * It'll only ever sample a tiny, self-selected minority of contributors * We still can't agree on good approval thresholds * It freezes the proposition on the vote date, preventing later evolution and discouraging earlyer use I see however a problem in the fact that the proposal page, with its voting section, is not present in the final feature page. There is just an approved status, and most people wouldn't care to take a look at *how* the thing was approved. An 8:2 vote thus results in exactly the same perception of a tag as a 50:0 one. That's why I suggested never closing the proposal page, and never removing the crosslinks between the proposal pages and the feature pages. There's no good reason to hide the proposal page afterwards, it contains information that is just as usefull as the actual current use of the feature page. The current system of a clear separation of the proposal and feature pages actually makes the closed voting necessary*. That *is why we need to agree on the numbers. Taking into account everything said in the (now multiple) threads on the topic here, would it make sense to *change the current proposal/voting mechanism like follows*? - Author proposes a feature as now. - RFC period with simultaneous page revision follows - Opinions for and against are expressed in the discussions and summarized at the top of the page (e.g. advantages and disadvantages of a tag) together with the current usage So far so good. - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined mathematically if needed), this very page is converted into a feature page. It is never approved or rejected, but the opinions are made clear. Why should the page be converted to a feature page ? A good proposal should already be nicely usable as documentation of the desired tagging schema. So that converting it would basically mean removing the votes/pros/cons sections and changing the name... Not really usefull by itself. By contrast, if the feature page documents actual use, that's a different look at the same problem, interesting in itself. Note also that the feature - proposal relation is not one to one but many to many. Any nontrivial proposal will link to multiple tags, and a particular tag may link back to multiple competing proposals (for example addr:housenumber which can be used either in a addr:street scheme or an associatedStreet one). Feature pages and proposals should be writen in parallel, not one after the other. A proposal without some proof-of-concept data somewhere is suspicious, and so should a brand new tag without a backing proposal. - People can add their concerns later just by editing the page. Thus there is no closing of the proposal phase. A feature can even get deprecated with time if the usage is low and too many issues became apparent. This would make discussions a bit more relaxed and positive. Yes. The advantage of such approach would be: - Adherence to the wiki idea, when the community develops a good page by working on it more than by discussing it; - Matching the OSM logic where numbers matter - The majority of concerns regarding the discussion, voting, and approval/rejection mechanism are addressed - The system is even i18n-friendly, because such a top-of-the-page summary can be easily translated, unlike a discussion in a mailing list (potentially several of them). Yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme
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. It is never approved or rejected, but the opinions are made clear. No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to objectively determine what the discussion concluded. If we absolutely must measure data in the database, how can we do otherwise in our processes ? About the only way would be to count up the emails for/against. And then discount the early ones as they would apply to early drafts of the proposal. Try and allow for the fence sitters No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct members but it is necessary. - People can add their concerns later just by editing the page. At present, people wanting to edit (more then typo) test the list's opinion first. Thats important. The advantage of such approach would be: ...Adherence to the wiki idea, when the community develops a good page by working on it more than by discussing it; In my experience, a wiki that is 'unmoderated' very quickly becomes such a mess its unusable. Fun for the few who know their way around it but a mystery to everyone else. And thats many years of leading a technical and very focused team using wiki as core documentation. The current system is not too bad. Lets correct the voting number anomaly first. You did seem to me have consensus there but given what I said above, does it need to be treated as a proposal ? New users to OSM need to see the idea of 'approved' keys and values. Its not enforced, we make that clear but a new user needs some initial guidance. Then maybe we look at the Forum idea ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 very good proposal, because it lists various possible tags so that people can compare and make up their mind. A 2-week voting period after a 2-week discussion period obviously would have messed it up. 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. Leaving comments and voting open for years won't change that .. it may simply confuse them as they want to use a tag .. if it is 'proposed' or 'voting' status wise they may be discouraged from using it. 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. The apiary proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/apiary Promotes one tag and list other tags that could be used .. It has been in comments stage for a few years .. abandoned? Sorry but I see little point in leaving a proposal open for long periods of time .. all tags will evolve over time .. no mater what the status 'inuse', 'approved' etc still means they may change over time .. leaving them as proposed does little for that long term change process. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 don't like! And it's easier to retrieve and reply to old threads. And the e-mail addresses are not presented to spammers on a silver platter. And you don't need to download messages you are not interested in. And you can log in using any web browser on any computer. No need for a tuned mailinglist-capable e-mail client, and no need to carry around a USB stick with old messages. Mailing lists are an obsolete technology. The may still be useful for topics where immediate actions or decisions are required, though. E.g. for discussing changeset reverts. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is generally difficult to decide on English tags when you don't speak English. I tend to disagree. A lot of people would be able to use the words temperature or reception desk. The same people however may not feel comfortable following an extensive discussion let alone contributing to it. Programmers use a lot of English words in their code, which doesn't mean they can use the very same words in real life. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 negative votes. Martin, 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 proposal where people don't care or object is not a good one IMO. However, I wouldn't mind changing it, since, as it is, there would be no difference. To not re-vote this change, let's accept it first, and then we can improve it further. Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 German Forum than on this or the de list and have much more participation... __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bridge Parapets
It would appear that the rendering for a bridge might include the parapet. Much of my local mapping however includes barriers along roads. These are generally connected to the bridge parapet. It would seem reasonable to therefore have a seperate way for each bridge paparet that links the barriers either side of the bridge. Perhaps, barrier=wall, wall=parapet. Parapet is however used in more that one context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet If bridge parapets were to be mapped would they therefore need a more distinct name in this context bridge_parapet of should there be some sort of relation between the highway segment of the bridge and its associated parapets? At the moment I just leave the barriers hanging but it doesn't seem like a very satisfactory approach to mapping given they are attached to the bridge. Regards Dudley ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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'.. why vote at all? Those casting 'abstention' once they realise it is the same as a no vote .. simply won't vote ... \ Then consider those that don't case a vote at all as abstentions.. as the vast majority don't cast a vote no proposal will be passed. So leave it up to those that do cast a valid vote. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 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 German Forum than on this or the de list and have much more participation... __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 copes fine with some she uses. I did need to warn her about using all caps and after that, she was fine. You are unlikely to meet a less tech savy person. We are 100x more productive in the German Forum ... Fine, then why not suggest we move to a similar model ? I'm personally quite happy with the list but would be willing to consider alternatives. As, I'm sure, would others. But we'd need to be convinced it has some advantages for us... David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: A separate debate is how to increase voting participation. making pending votes more visible in the editing tools could help. Just some idea: Translate the proposal in German, French, Spanish and Russian, ... (the largest communities outside the English speaking countries) Let people vote and discuss in their own language. Sum up the votes from the different pages. Not everyone is willing/capable to discuss in a foreign language. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 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 jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: 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: 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, please note: we are not discussing the consequences of approval/rejection, we just change the rule of thumb recommendation to a mathematically more sound one. 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 the tagging mailing list, I suggest to announce it more broadly, eg on the national lists and on talk. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 are still busy with mapping more straightforward stuff like paved roads, house numbers, simple POIs. Why think of the future, there are so many more things that we can map without endless discussions ? - maybe why should I bother discussing something, while free tagging is allowed. - language barrier, please don't forget that not everybody is capable to discuss in English. The Belgian mailing list suggest to discuss in English (to avoid the French-Dutch-German problem), but we had complaints that this limits the participation. regards m. p.s. Also see Harry Wood's presentation on the last SOTM about the long tail: https://vimeo.com/album/3134207/video/112438218 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Can we copy some of this: for other vehicles than mtb:
http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
At grade 6, it's a list of things including a drop of over 2m.
It's fairly well fleshed out.
True, but the other downhill scales, 0-5, have no measurables except
gradient.
If we can have such a scale for MTB and dirt bikes, why not for four
wheeled vehicles ? Copy the style and approach ?
Incidentally, take a look at where that guy on scale=4 is heading,
crazy !
David
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM, David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
road_usable=car;4x4;mt
Tag what's there: measure something. Don't tag an
interpretation.
Bryce, please tell us how it should be done then. Don't just
sit there
saying computer says no. A drovers dog can tell this
capability is
needed. Look at how many proposals there have been, at how
many times
its hit this thread.
No telling what a drovers dog is, but:
highway=track
surface=dirt
constraint:cobble_size:sustained=15cm
constraint:cobble_size:average=25cm
constraint:sand:worst=30cm
constraint:side_slope:worst=22degrees
---
highway=track
surface=dirt
surface:variation={1-smooth,2-rough,3-potholed,4-rutted,5-deeply_rutted}
surface:constraints=steep;narrow;side_slope;sand;winch_
section;hells_angels
---
highway=track
surface=dirt
surface:mtb={0-5} (Tag segments, or add s for sustained or x the
worst case. 5s 5x is thus harder than 1s 5x)
surface:4wd={0-5}
surface:2wd={0-5}
surface:hgv={0-5}
surface:motorbike={0-5}
surface:width=6m
surface:constraints=steep;hello_kitty_gang;puncture vine
---
And I previously posed that a survey of users would help, as long as
multiple answers are allowed:
User: Fred, Date: 2015-01-01 Condition report: went right through in a
Yugo with two flat tires. Vehicle=2wd
User: Fredy, Date: 2015-01-02 Condition report: impassable via car
after rain, had to turn back at Big Creek, nearly lost it at cliff.
Vehicle=4wd
User: Fredyy, Date: 2015-01-05 Condition report: alien encampment at
milepost 23 - nearly ate my vehicle. Vehicle=spaceship
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 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 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 jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: 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: 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, please note: we are not discussing the consequences of approval/rejection, we just change the rule of thumb recommendation to a mathematically more sound one. 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 the tagging mailing list, I suggest to announce it more broadly, eg on the national lists and on talk. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 05:58 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Can we copy some of this: for other vehicles than
mtb: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
Indeed, I spent a bit of time driving in their neighbour, Utah, national
Parks. From memory, some tracks there were graded, similar ?
Would you suggest the 1-10 descriptive track model or the 0-5 vehicle
scale ?
I'd prefer the vehicle one because thats what a user wants but know only
too well there will be cries of 'subjective'. But ask any
existentialist, they will tell you life itself is subjective.
David
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
At grade 6, it's a list of things including a drop of over
2m.
It's fairly well fleshed out.
True, but the other downhill scales, 0-5, have no measurables
except
gradient.
If we can have such a scale for MTB and dirt bikes, why not
for four
wheeled vehicles ? Copy the style and approach ?
Incidentally, take a look at where that guy on scale=4 is
heading,
crazy !
David
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM, David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt
wrote:
road_usable=car;4x4;mt
Tag what's there: measure something. Don't tag an
interpretation.
Bryce, please tell us how it should be done then.
Don't just
sit there
saying computer says no. A drovers dog can tell
this
capability is
needed. Look at how many proposals there have been,
at how
many times
its hit this thread.
No telling what a drovers dog is, but:
highway=track
surface=dirt
constraint:cobble_size:sustained=15cm
constraint:cobble_size:average=25cm
constraint:sand:worst=30cm
constraint:side_slope:worst=22degrees
---
highway=track
surface=dirt
surface:variation={1-smooth,2-rough,3-potholed,4-rutted,5-deeply_rutted}
surface:constraints=steep;narrow;side_slope;sand;winch_section;hells_angels
---
highway=track
surface=dirt
surface:mtb={0-5} (Tag segments, or add s for sustained
or x the
worst case. 5s 5x is thus harder than 1s 5x)
surface:4wd={0-5}
surface:2wd={0-5}
surface:hgv={0-5}
surface:motorbike={0-5}
surface:width=6m
surface:constraints=steep;hello_kitty_gang;puncture vine
---
And I previously posed that a survey of users would help, as
long as
multiple answers are allowed:
User: Fred, Date: 2015-01-01 Condition report: went right
through in a
Yugo with two flat tires. Vehicle=2wd
User: Fredy, Date: 2015-01-02 Condition report: impassable
via car
after rain, had to turn back at Big Creek, nearly lost it at
cliff.
Vehicle=4wd
User: Fredyy, Date: 2015-01-05 Condition report: alien
encampment at
milepost 23 - nearly ate my vehicle. Vehicle=spaceship
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 ! Maybe people just watch the chatter and make up their minds accordingly ? Or do people who are not tagging list subscribers watch the wiki and vote when something interesting appears ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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, 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 ! Maybe people just watch the chatter and make up their minds accordingly ? Or do people who are not tagging list subscribers watch the wiki and vote when something interesting appears ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 07:27 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: - language barrier, please don't forget that not everybody is capable to discuss in English. The Belgian mailing list suggest to discuss in English (to avoid the French-Dutch-German problem), but we had complaints that this limits the participation. And thats a pretty good point. But to fork off each discussion onto a new language list would fracture the discussion. We'd need a person fluent in English and the other language to manage that situation, a big work load and, I suppose, a big responsibility too. Marc, do you find the English speakers here anything less than supporting ? What about use of expressions or references to popular culture, does that make it harder do you think ? Translate the proposal in German, French, Spanish and Russian, ... Is perhaps easier in that its a one off with some subsequent updates. Again, a bilingual person needed to copy and translate the proposal and register the translation on the original proposal so people can find it. I'd like to see that but could not help ! Safe to say, as a native English speaker, I'd be very reluctant to participate if it was in some other language. I feel for you folks ! David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:44 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Marc, do you find the English speakers here anything less than supporting ? What about use of expressions or references to popular culture, does that make it harder do you think ? No, I have no problems with the English speaking community myself, but I'm lucky to be rather fluent in English. And I learn new words as I follow the mailing lists :-). On the other hand, I also follow lists in German and French, but I am very reluctant to participate in those discussions, as my language skills are not good enough for that. So I imagine that this is the case for other people and English. | And thats a pretty good point. But to fork off each discussion onto a | new language list would fracture the discussion. We'd need a person totally agree with that. But right now, you also see that proposals are made in local communities that never make it to the general mailing list. The Lübeck bicycle tagging scheme comes to mind. and look at the wiki pages in German. I took a lot of historic or animal related tagging from there, because there is no English page for those topics. Unfortunately I have no solution for this, I can only regret that participation to the tagging mailing list is for some limited by language knowledge. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
