Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: This contradicts in many cases our current page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. Computers are very good at removing spaces ( s/ //g ), and converting units. Humans are bad at getting default units correct (witness the USA Hubble Telescope). Once the proposal is hashed out, the intent is to populate the same set of guidelines to all pages. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units embedded on their own pages. That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more experience in how data customers would deal with the data. A scout camp is a camp. It is visited by people who are not directly affiliated with those who run the camp. People visit the camp as a form of vacation activity. They have to be a member of the overall national body, but people who make reservations for their group are usually not part of the operating group, and travel hundreds of KM to visit it, usually by car, and is a camping landmark for thousands and thousands of campers. To almost all the people who visit it, it is a far-away tourist destination that they have never seen, and will visit only on vacations. There are also other private camps that are equally well known, such as school camps, and lesser known ones that are private (usually religious or corporate). it would be a failure of OSM not to map them, and a failure not to show they require membership (access=private) as _so many other buildings and religious buildings do already. We don’t have highway=service and highway=private_service because there already is a way to show that it is a road and has private access through the access=private tag. Alleys and driveways are differentiated through the service= tag. If it is decided it is a big problem, such as amenity=toilets automatically implies public access, then, yea, I guess another category of campsite needs to be created to reflect their private nature. I think it easier to put that in camp_site=private_camp rather than making a new amenity tag. There would be several other types of affiliation based camps (religious retreats, school camps, corporate retreat facilities), so a “scout camp” might be too narrow. Amenity=private_camp would be good as well if that is also deemed too connected to amenity=camp_site. But is it necessary to make another amenity tag? also - If there is an affiliation / brand / chain = tag, it might also be helpful, as boy scout camps are operated like franchises - like a privately owned McDonalds. for example, the Los Angeles council owns/leases the land and operates the camp, so operator= Los Angeles BSA; but the brand or chain = Boy Scouts of America (for American example). Most large national boy scout groups are a basically a franchising company - giving their approval to local chapters operated by civic groups. This would let someone pick out all the scout camps through that additional brand/franchise/chain/etc= tag, but the operator would correctly show who is actually running the camp. Javbw On Apr 3, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't offer services to the general public. This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? 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] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
2015-04-03 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com: I think this template should be deleted or be changed to reflect exactly what Map_Features/Units says. (But probably even a direct link to Map_Features/Units would be easier and clearer – so I don’t see any need for this template.) +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't offer services to the general public. This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On 3/04/2015 4:21 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
To try and make unit description consistent here is a proposed template.
This would apply to tags like ele, est_width, circumference, height,
width, maxwidth, minwidth, distance. A separate table could be made
for speed weight.
Use as follows:
{{Unit_Tagging_Length|tag_name|furlongs}}
Chains? Perches? (Though the 'trade' that uses the perch is required ..
it changes between some) Cubits? How far back do 'we' go?
The template is defined at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unit_Tagging_Length
Reference to SI on the page ? ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units ?
Better explanations can be had from National Measurement Bodies ... NPL
uk, NIST USA, PTB Germany .. eg
www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-*units*/
There is an inconsistency in the use of a white space between the number
and the unit on the page.
Preference should be given to using a white space between the number and
the unit.
It is mandatory in scientific papers .. if your publishing. It also
stated in various 'style guides'. Possibly an ISO standard?
May be make it optional for data entry?
I like the default units myself... but then they as SI and that is what
I use for most things. Not happy with kPa for tyre pressure .. still use
PSI.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more experience in how data customers would deal with the data. Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission from the site owner to access the grounds. m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal.
So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace.
2015-04-03 8:01 GMT, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com:
The default unit is _not_ always “meters”. There are tags where the
default unit is “meters” (e. g. width) and there are others where the
default unit is “kilometers” (e. g. distance).
“Centimeters” isn’t in the current list of accepted units at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units.
A wide variety of formats are acceptable:
The list that is following this statement doesn’t contain “km”. It
seems to be only a list of some non-mandatory examples. So the
statement sound like it’s up to the mapper to choose whatever unit he
likes (and software has to find its way to deal with this situation).
And that’s a very bad idea. We need a _defined_ list of accepted
units. The worst thing we can do is promote that everybody uses
whatever unit (and abbriviation) he wants. Map_Features/Units has such
a list, and I see no reason to invalidate this.
I think this template should or be deleted or be changed to reflect
exactly what Map_Features/Units says. (But probably even a direct link
to Map_Features/Units would be easier and clearer – so I don’t see any
need for this template.)
2015-04-03 6:49 GMT, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
This contradicts in many cases our current page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units
* The use of meters is discouraged
* cm should not be used generally, maybe only on some specific tags
* There should always be a space in front of the unit
* Neither feet nor inches should be used, use feet'inch instead
* It is not discouraged to not include the default unit
regards,
Martin
2015-04-03 7:21 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
To try and make unit description consistent here is a proposed template.
This would apply to tags like ele, est_width, circumference, height,
width, maxwidth, minwidth, distance. A separate table could be made for
speed weight.
Use as follows:
{{Unit_Tagging_Length|tag_name|furlongs}}
The template is defined at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unit_Tagging_Length
Other unit pages include:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Units
--
This particular summary promotes the notion of human centred tagging,
with parsers left to make conversion to computer readable units. It
also
promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over implicit ones ( e.g. 20 ).
Given the variety of unit styles already in the database, this seems to
be
the most pragmatic approach.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Lukas Sommer
--
Lukas Sommer
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. On 2015-04-03 09:56, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission from the site owner to access the grounds. Camp sites in general are: access=public fee=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: A wide variety of formats are acceptable: The list that is following this statement doesn’t contain “km”. It seems to be only a list of some non-mandatory examples The template takes a parameter to adapt to different origin pages (e.g. distance in km). The core of the proposal lies elsewhere. It is: *Current* * Wiki Documents * *Proposed* * Wiki Documents * Use of default units is encouraged. Ask all mappers to specify the units for clarity, even if they are at default. Syntax is tight, specifying whitespace, restricting choices. Put the burden on parsing. Let the tagging be more human oriented. This is what people do anyway, so any parser that actually wants data is probably already doing this. Inconsistent treatment among tags. Unit tagging rules are cut pasted. Use a template to spread the same guidelines to all tags, easing future updates. Either way, a cleanup of the recognized units is in order (e.g. km, m/meters/m, ft/feet/foot/ ). It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. That's not possible for a working template, as far as I can tell, as the the template space is magic. I can add a DRAFT status. Note the template is not USED, so nobody other than readers of this list have seen it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 3/04/2015 5:05 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't offer services to the general public. This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? Wrong? Nothing I can see. Best? Another question. Some want top down tagging. Some want tags for green sheep with 6 legs. What is best? Without a general statement of what is preferable no one has any basis for a decision. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
The default unit is _not_ always “meters”. There are tags where the
default unit is “meters” (e. g. width) and there are others where the
default unit is “kilometers” (e. g. distance).
“Centimeters” isn’t in the current list of accepted units at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units.
A wide variety of formats are acceptable:
The list that is following this statement doesn’t contain “km”. It
seems to be only a list of some non-mandatory examples. So the
statement sound like it’s up to the mapper to choose whatever unit he
likes (and software has to find its way to deal with this situation).
And that’s a very bad idea. We need a _defined_ list of accepted
units. The worst thing we can do is promote that everybody uses
whatever unit (and abbriviation) he wants. Map_Features/Units has such
a list, and I see no reason to invalidate this.
I think this template should or be deleted or be changed to reflect
exactly what Map_Features/Units says. (But probably even a direct link
to Map_Features/Units would be easier and clearer – so I don’t see any
need for this template.)
2015-04-03 6:49 GMT, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
This contradicts in many cases our current page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units
* The use of meters is discouraged
* cm should not be used generally, maybe only on some specific tags
* There should always be a space in front of the unit
* Neither feet nor inches should be used, use feet'inch instead
* It is not discouraged to not include the default unit
regards,
Martin
2015-04-03 7:21 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
To try and make unit description consistent here is a proposed template.
This would apply to tags like ele, est_width, circumference, height,
width, maxwidth, minwidth, distance. A separate table could be made for
speed weight.
Use as follows:
{{Unit_Tagging_Length|tag_name|furlongs}}
The template is defined at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unit_Tagging_Length
Other unit pages include:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Units
--
This particular summary promotes the notion of human centred tagging,
with parsers left to make conversion to computer readable units. It also
promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over implicit ones ( e.g. 20 ).
Given the variety of unit styles already in the database, this seems to
be
the most pragmatic approach.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Lukas Sommer
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
I'd ask the following be excluded ? cm (used in the clothing and foot ware trades ..not an OSM thing ) cubits I don’t think that there is a need to “exclude” some values (and “allow” anything else). Insteat, I think there is a need to “allow” some values (and exclude anything else). 2015-04-03 9:16 GMT, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com: So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. That's not possible for a working template, Note the template is not USED, And it should also not be used, because it’s just your personal proposal for a discussion. So there is no need to have a working template. So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. 2015-04-03 8:51 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units embedded on their own pages. That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. -- Lukas Sommer -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that Renderers have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units while creating image tiles ... and this is an 'approved' tag. That's mapping for the rendering's back-end SQL database. If I'm staring at a sign that says 14,505 feet, that's certainly how I want to tag it. The rendering can catch up. Parsers are easy, ubiquitous and cheap. To the extent the wiki describes actual tagging practice, rather than hopes, this is already a non issue. People do tag feet, meters, psi and a variety of other reasonable human oriented units. Any rendering not parsing that data is missing valid data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-03 10:22 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:21 PM, François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, +1 with Bryce and published instead of approved +1 with Ole regarding power features Cheers François So let's see if we can make it happen. The question of what wiki approval means has been a thorn for a long time. The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published, with no other changes. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. This change requires Wiki administrator cooperation and buy in, to implement. I like this idea. This will help reduce dogmatism. Does this proposal need a wiki page? (I'm not trying to be ironic, just asking) Dan ___ 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Don't like that idea... The 'voting' needs to be yes/no otherwise it is too much of a judgement call that will not make sense to most. If something is rejected.. then if someone cares enough they can simply make a wiki page .. just as if they had never had a vote on the feature. The true assessment of a tag is ... the number of times it is used (relative to the perceived occurance of the feature) if it is rendered (even if only on one map) New mappers will simply look for a tag.. if they find two or more things that may suit they will probably chose the best fit (I hope). [Presently trying to deal with radio telescopes .. tagged one way in Australia and another in Africa, and then there are mazes .. at least two ways for them too] On 3/04/2015 9:56 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: One more idea: why do we need a binary outcome of the voting? Something like endorsement= positive/neutral/negative (the current approve, abstain, reject) as an indicator tells much more (together with tag use). Examples: * Endorsement=50/0/2 - very good, important tag (much involvement) - go on and use * Endorsement=10/0/1 - good tag, of interest to a small group - go on and use * Endorsement=35/4/28 - not a very good tag, but about an important topic - nothing better possible? * Endorsement = 4/0/3 - not a very good tag, but few people care - use as you see fit On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? ___ 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
On 3/04/2015 10:12 PM, Chris Hill wrote: -1 'Endorsed' is just another way of saying approved. We need to remove this status that 'some authority' has given their blessing to use the tag. True. 'Published' is a useful statement which demonstrates community discussion and some consensus but nothing else. 'Reviewed' ... used in scientific publications .. full words are 'peer reviewed' .. 'Reviewed' might be ok? Means it has been seen by someone (usually more than one) and possibly had changes made before being 'published', 'endorsed' 'approved' ... I do think the voting process is of value and should be accorded some worth. 'Reviewed' might give the right impression? Or may it be incorrectly interpreted to mean that the original has been changed since it was 'approved'? Or may be that is the right impression after all. I don't think much of any of these words .. including 'reviewed' ... none of them to me says what 'we' do. Sorry. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
From an IT perspective we should be keeping form and function separate. There are two facts here: 1) the altitude of that point is 14505 ft - it is what it is, whatever units you use. Saying the altitude is 4421.124m is also correct. The value needs a number and a unit, in an agreed format. It doesn't have to be human-readable (although that helps), but it must be computer-parsable. The representation of the both the number and the unit are for internal use and are expected to be formatted in some way before being presented to a human (decimal points/thousands separators for example). 2) there is a sign that reads 14,505 feet - human-readable and recognisable. It is trying to conflate these two things that makes life so complicated in OSM. Even street name signs suffer from this - streets are called whatever the authority says they are called. If there is a sign saying something else, then there are two facts here, both equally valid but from different perspectives. It's a shame we don't have any discussion about OSM information modelling. I could start some, but because that would inevitably lead to some concept of right and wrong ways of tagging, I will save my energy for more productive things. //colin On 2015-04-03 13:18, Warin wrote: On 3/04/2015 8:33 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that Renderers have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units while creating image tiles ... and this is an 'approved' tag. That's mapping for the rendering's back-end SQL database. Not saying it is good... but that is what is written in the wiki. If I'm staring at a sign that says 14,505 feet, that's certainly how I want to tag it. Agreed Conversions should be done remotely rather than by a tired mapper at 14,505 feet! And are best done by a tried and tested code. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. That's not possible for a working template, Note the template is not USED, And it should also not be used, because it’s just your personal proposal for a discussion. So there is no need to have a working template. So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. 2015-04-03 8:51 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units embedded on their own pages. That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units embedded on their own pages. That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. Map_Features/Units isn’t a big wiki page. It’s really short (3 sentences and some tables). Maybe for keys like “width” it could be usefull to have only the part about distances (and not the part about weight). But dropping the rest of the content makes things confusing. 2015-04-03 9:25 GMT, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com: I'd ask the following be excluded ? cm (used in the clothing and foot ware trades ..not an OSM thing ) cubits I don’t think that there is a need to “exclude” some values (and “allow” anything else). Insteat, I think there is a need to “allow” some values (and exclude anything else). 2015-04-03 9:16 GMT, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com: So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. That's not possible for a working template, Note the template is not USED, And it should also not be used, because it’s just your personal proposal for a discussion. So there is no need to have a working template. So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. 2015-04-03 8:51 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units embedded on their own pages. That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. -- Lukas Sommer -- Lukas Sommer -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript building, but serves to welcome visitors. We had an example in Johannesburg of someone who ran two businesses: car parts and a campground. The reception of the campground was in the car parts shop two blocks away from the campground. If you have this information properly mapped you know that you need the function campground reception, but you look for a car parts shop. Similarly as a general tourist you are not interested in a scout camp, therefore the function should be mapped differently. So the land use may be campground, but the function is not. Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel tourism doesn't give any additional information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just storage_rental should be sufficient. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. ___ 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I know the problem, but while in the past we might have made new tags for green sheep with 6 legs, the other extreme is to force everything where you can stay with in a tent under tourism=camp_site. That's what I understood from Martin's mail, they are too different, not that he does not want you to map scout camps. There is no best, for each case we have to see whether it is appropriate to try to come up with a general tag that fits many objects and which requires subtags or just come up with new tag on top level. IMHO, scout camps are too different from camp sites that we could introduce a new tag for them. Similar: holiday stays, tents (or barracks) different: certain age groups, supervised, private there are probably other similarities or differences. Another (the most ?) important thing is that I cannot imagine that when you looking for a scout camp that you are interested to see where the camp sites are (or vice versa). This is different from parkings, if I need to park my car near an office, I'll be looking for the private parking of that office or a parking open to the public. I need both. regards m On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/04/2015 5:05 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't offer services to the general public. This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? Wrong? Nothing I can see. Best? Another question. Some want top down tagging. Some want tags for green sheep with 6 legs. What is best? Without a general statement of what is preferable no one has any basis for a decision. ___ 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] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
This contradicts in many cases our current page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units
* The use of meters is discouraged
* cm should not be used generally, maybe only on some specific tags
* There should always be a space in front of the unit
* Neither feet nor inches should be used, use feet'inch instead
* It is not discouraged to not include the default unit
regards,
Martin
2015-04-03 7:21 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
To try and make unit description consistent here is a proposed template.
This would apply to tags like ele, est_width, circumference, height,
width, maxwidth, minwidth, distance. A separate table could be made for
speed weight.
Use as follows:
{{Unit_Tagging_Length|tag_name|furlongs}}
The template is defined at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unit_Tagging_Length
Other unit pages include:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Units
--
This particular summary promotes the notion of human centred tagging,
with parsers left to make conversion to computer readable units. It also
promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over implicit ones ( e.g. 20 ).
Given the variety of unit styles already in the database, this seems to be
the most pragmatic approach.
___
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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission from the site owner to access the grounds. Camp sites in general are: access=public fee=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
2015-04-03 9:39 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. Then you should label it accordingly. Currently it is nowhere identified as proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
I am against adding yet another template to wiki, intended to be used as
part of article
text.
Many pages are already obnoxious to edit because on editing it turns out
that table
is hidden in a template - so it is necessary to open another page.
It also promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over implicit ones ( e.g. 20
).
I am also against explicitly mentioning default units. I can understand
using feet (but I
am not happy about it). But expecting people using standard units (meters
for height etc)
to waste time on making clear that they are not using weird ones is not the
best idea.
Obviously, I supporting using explicit numbers.
2015-04-03 7:21 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
To try and make unit description consistent here is a proposed template.
This would apply to tags like ele, est_width, circumference, height,
width, maxwidth, minwidth, distance. A separate table could be made for
speed weight.
Use as follows:
{{Unit_Tagging_Length|tag_name|furlongs}}
The template is defined at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unit_Tagging_Length
Other unit pages include:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Units
--
This particular summary promotes the notion of human centred tagging,
with parsers left to make conversion to computer readable units. It also
promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over implicit ones ( e.g. 20 ).
Given the variety of unit styles already in the database, this seems to be
the most pragmatic approach.
___
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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
“Supported” by whom? To me that implies that a number of data consumers/renders will use that data. I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. Tod On Apr 3, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Is supported reasonable? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published I would prefer to stay with approved. Using published would not actually make things clearer, quite the opposite: Using the normal meaning of published, a proposal is published as soon as someone hits the save button. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. Placing more weight on tags that are the result of public discussion and represent a consensus among interested mappers is actually a good thing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Hi, On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. Ideally, recommended by 25 users, just to bring a perspective to things ;) But humour aside, I applaud the idea of getting rid of approved. The suggestion of published is not ideal but at least it doesn't suggest a too-special status. Another, similar, name could be listed - so something is proposed, and then once enough people support it it can make its way onto a list. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published I would prefer to stay with approved. Using published would not actually make things clearer, quite the opposite: Using the normal meaning of published, a proposal is published as soon as someone hits the save button. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. Placing more weight on tags that are the result of public discussion and represent a consensus among interested mappers is actually a good thing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Is supported reasonable? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published I would prefer to stay with approved. Using published would not actually make things clearer, quite the opposite: Using the normal meaning of published, a proposal is published as soon as someone hits the save button. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. Placing more weight on tags that are the result of public discussion and represent a consensus among interested mappers is actually a good thing. ___ 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] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On 3/04/2015 7:39 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Either way, a cleanup of the recognized units is in order (e.g. km, m/meters/m, ft/feet/foot/ ). I note that; ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that Renderers have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units while creating image tiles ... and this is an 'approved' tag. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele The distance= key specifies the units page be consulted for units .. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:distance The maxlenght key does not go in to units other than the default is metres. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength Looks like a good deal of inconsistency across the wiki! --- I'd ask the following be excluded ? cm (used in the clothing and foot ware trades ..not an OSM thing ) cubits furlongs chains poles perches ... and and other old units not in present common use (well other than cm) . And I note that aviation still uses feet for height. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 3/04/2015 9:27 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel tourism doesn't give any additional information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just storage_rental should be sufficient. Not a good example. How is the render/user to chose between the shop' storage_rental and the amenity storage_rental ? Personal .. it is a shop. If the camp_site information 'tourist', 'scout', 'refugee' etc is outside OSM then the render/user has no hope of determining which it is. Should camp_site be moved to amenity? With camp_customer=tourist/scout/member/refugee ... Some could say that student accommodation run by universities are simply hotels .. but not for tourists. There are a fair few issues that arise when you try to get the logic of OSM. Precedence of shop key over amenity for me. But that is not stated anywhere in OSM. Let us keep the end user in sight .. One set have a GPS .. that has a search function that likes things classified a certain way thus the key structure? Another set have a map .. and they want symbols on it to represent things.. Another set have both the above.. What suits them? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smalecolin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. Public things are closed to the public from time to time .. visiting 'dignitaries' can close major roads and cause lots of disruption to the public. Same with museums, art galleries, parks. So even if 'public' it may not be open all the time to the public. I think that regional variations will confuse these words .. so either 'we' need to accept that or define them within OSM. Eitehr way they will still be 'misinterpreted' by mappers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
One more idea: why do we need a binary outcome of the voting? Something like endorsement= positive/neutral/negative (the current approve, abstain, reject) as an indicator tells much more (together with tag use). Examples: - Endorsement=50/0/2 - very good, important tag (much involvement) - go on and use - Endorsement=10/0/1 - good tag, of interest to a small group - go on and use - Endorsement=35/4/28 - not a very good tag, but about an important topic - nothing better possible? - Endorsement = 4/0/3 - not a very good tag, but few people care - use as you see fit On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
-1 'Endorsed' is just another way of saying approved. We need to remove this status that 'some authority' has given their blessing to use the tag. 'Published' is a useful statement which demonstrates community discussion and some consensus but nothing else. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly On 03/04/15 11:56, Jan van Bekkum wrote: One more idea: why do we need a binary outcome of the voting? Something like endorsement= positive/neutral/negative (the current approve, abstain, reject) as an indicator tells much more (together with tag use). Examples: * Endorsement=50/0/2 - very good, important tag (much involvement) - go on and use * Endorsement=10/0/1 - good tag, of interest to a small group - go on and use * Endorsement=35/4/28 - not a very good tag, but about an important topic - nothing better possible? * Endorsement = 4/0/3 - not a very good tag, but few people care - use as you see fit On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
On 3/04/2015 8:33 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that Renderers have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units while creating image tiles ... and this is an 'approved' tag. That's mapping for the rendering's back-end SQL database. Not saying it is good... but that is what is written in the wiki. If I'm staring at a sign that says 14,505 feet, that's certainly how I want to tag it. Agreed Conversions should be done remotely rather than by a tired mapper at 14,505 feet! And are best done by a tried and tested code. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
On 3 April 2015 at 10:22, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published, with no other changes. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. I appreciate your effort to bring more clarity in the different wiki statuses. However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published' is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a proposal approved by the OSM community. The fact that only a small number of people vote is not relevant, as anybody in the community can get involved in the tag selection process if they want to. In short, I oppose this proposal. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
On 03/04/15 17:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I appreciate your effort to bring more clarity in the different wiki statuses. However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published' is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a proposal approved by the OSM community. I couldn't disagree more. The list of 'approved' have not been approved by the community, they have received a tick in a list from tiny number of people in the community. Not only is this an insignificant number of people but there are no controls to remove sock puppets and in no way can this properly be called a vote. The fact that only a small number of people vote is not relevant, as anybody in the community can get involved in the tag selection process if they want to. Just because people are able to get involved doesn't mean that they will know the process even exists, how to get involved, want to or even care. Most people will just use the presets in an editor and may not even know what a tag is. Saying people can get involved, when we know almost no-one does, doesn't justify calling tag approved. There are no approved tags in OSM. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Hi, On 04/03/2015 06:09 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published' is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a proposal approved by the OSM community. No, approved is often misunderstood as approved by the OSM community when in fact it is only approved by a fraction of the OSM community. The fact that only a small number of people vote is not relevant, as anybody in the community can get involved in the tag selection process if they want to. No, that is not sensible - it's a bit like the Hitchhiker's guide you could have read this if you had wanted to thing. The OSM community has never authorized anyone to make tag approval decisions on their behalf. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Circling back to the proposal at hand: The notion is that the word approved has over the years repeatedly contributed to confusion about the role of a wiki vote. The proposal is to replace the word approved with the word published. -- Separately we can talk about how to involve more people in the tag evolution discussion, and by extension the vote. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
You're right, the 'status' field in the template may look very official and definitive, but going from approved to published is a step in a good direction. Yves Le 3 avril 2015 23:50:40 GMT+02:00, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com a écrit : On 4/04/2015 8:30 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Circling back to the proposal at hand: The notion is that the word approved has over the years repeatedly contributed to confusion about the role of a wiki vote. The proposal is to replace the word approved with the word published. Against. I don't think the word change will change that confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Yves From my phone___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
No, that is not sensible - it's a bit like the Hitchhiker's guide you could have read this if you had wanted to thing. Except that we don't have a Beware of the Leopard sign. Maybe we should start a vote on how to tag those. Polyglot ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
On 4/04/2015 8:30 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Circling back to the proposal at hand: The notion is that the word approved has over the years repeatedly contributed to confusion about the role of a wiki vote. The proposal is to replace the word approved with the word published. Against. I don't think the word change will change that confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Actually we can also rid of “Rejected” in the same way. I have seen example of (but cannot remember exactly what tag) of a “rejected” tag with many usages. I rather change “Rejected” to “Not Recommended”, and with that kind of wording, “Approved” would rather be “Recommended (by 25 users)”. A wiki vote doesn’t automatically mean a tag will have usages in the database, or if consumers will use that tag. Changing wording from “Approved”/“Rejected” to “Recommended”/“Not Recommended” might soften the differences. There are many “Approved” tags that are not rendered, or used by other data consumers, and there are “Rejected” tags that are supported in some thematic rendering, or in specific applications. The wiki is a good guideline to both mappers and consumers, but it doesn’t necessarily limit/ban the usage of tags. As a data consumer I can set up usage of the tag teleledningsanka=*, but if I doesn’t communicate this in any form, I would probably not get any support for it. Also as a data consumer I might consider the tags of being highway too specific, and either not using certain classes, or combining multiple values in the same rendering rule (or for other usage). After all, what is of interest to a data consumer is, how often do a certain data type occure and what the community mean with the different tags. It is good to know if a tag have been deprecated by another tagging scheme, and how many tags remain of the deprecated tag (TagInfo is a great tool for this). There is really no difference between an “Approved” or “De Facto” tag for a consumer in the sense that both generally have a good representation in usages. A “Rejected” tag or a “Deprecated” tag with a large number of usages should still be considered for usage by a consumer. Aun Johnsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
On 4/04/2015 8:58 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Against. I don't think the word change will change that confusion. Is that abstain because it's a waste of time, or opposed because it will cause harm? It is a 'No' vote. Not an abstain. . For an English definition see http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/154075?redirectedFrom=published#eid Replacement of the word 'Approved with Published' will cause a similar level of confusion. No gain, indeed a loss as time will be wasted changing the word 'approved'. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
I like recommended by 25 users, but then I would also want to know how many users oppose the idea: 25-0 is not the same as 25-24. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:14 PM Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. Ideally, recommended by 25 users, just to bring a perspective to things ;) But humour aside, I applaud the idea of getting rid of approved. The suggestion of published is not ideal but at least it doesn't suggest a too-special status. Another, similar, name could be listed - so something is proposed, and then once enough people support it it can make its way onto a list. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
