Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 24/02/2016 11:34 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: The reality is that most mappers don't pay any attention to this group or the "decisions" we make. It's all well and good to make careful deliberations about this tag or that one but in the end people will do what they want. They will continue to

[Tagging] dcr

sent from a phone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

sent from a phone > Am 23.02.2016 um 23:55 schrieb Dominic Coletti : > > I feel like phone and fax are distinct to internet cafés, and should not be > simply thrown out. Especially in developing countries where infrastructure is > not as advanced. yes, I can

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

I agree that not all developing countries have internet cafés but I noticed several such establishments in Africa, specifically Uganda. There, the tag would be hugely beneficial. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:27 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Replying in part to Dominic's

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

The reality is that most mappers don't pay any attention to this group or the "decisions" we make. It's all well and good to make careful deliberations about this tag or that one but in the end people will do what they want. They will continue to tag for the renderer, add tags that make no sense

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

Replying in part to Dominic's comment: Internet cafes are fairly rare here in Thailand because Internet is available in almost every public venue; hotels, coffee shops, even bars. What we do see are gaming rooms, full of internet-connected computers and teenagers. While Thailand is not quite a

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Rejected - Jewellery shop

Dear all, The proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery has been rejected. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop The proposal received 40 votes for, 18 votes against, and 4 abstentions. The approval rate was 68.97%, which is less than the required 74%. It

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

I feel like phone and fax are distinct to internet cafés, and should not be simply thrown out. Especially in developing countries where infrastructure is not as advanced. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:52 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/02/2016 4:33 AM, Johnparis wrote: > > A place

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

On 24/02/2016 4:33 AM, Johnparis wrote: A place whose principal role is providing communication services (internet, telephone and/or fax). Telephone? Fax? Don't thing these are frequent? No mention of coffee/tea/cake? Nor a mention of additional services such as wifi, CD/DVD burning,

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

A place whose principal role is providing communication services (internet, telephone and/or fax). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Internet_cafe ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 23.02.2016 13:42, Andy Townsend wrote: > As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already, you can say my name if you want to :) > they've > never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case > they want to tell _other people_ how to tag things that they

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

Don't forget it doesn't really matter if the tag is jewelry or jewellery. It's about having a uniform way of tagging. Who would vote against that, I wonder? And if both values are currently considered equivalent in OSM, changing existing data from one spelling to another does not change the value

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 23/02/2016 12:32, markus schnalke wrote: Aren't the ones who vote those who care for what the actual tagging is? As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already, they've never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case they want to tell _other people_

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[2016-02-23 11:54] Andy Townsend > > > > It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and > > 4 abstentions. > > Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional > > rejection; proposer to make final call. > > The tricky bit of course is that

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

And how much of 1100 mappers would really be interested ine the spelling of the word? Only beacause you map something, doesnt mean that you care about the tagging, me for example never tagged a jewelry (or jewellery :)) shop, but I did care about the proposal. So, of course, its a pitty that only

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 23 February 2016 at 12:54, Andy Townsend wrote: > The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people who > voted". > > Taginfo reckons objects with the key "shop" were last edited by 105 030 > different users, and there are 1,976,690 shops, of which 20,851

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 23/02/2016 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and 4 abstentions. Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional rejection; proposer to make final call. The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 23 February 2016 at 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal > proceduce to change the way we count the votes? How was this procedure > introduced? > > Example, the current jeweller voting: > Voting closed

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

ok I don't have a neutral opinion on this proposal, but I think especially here, if you want to change 20.000 tagged objects, it should be three quarters. On 23.02.2016 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal > proceduce to change

[Tagging] Voting rules

I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal proceduce to change the way we count the votes? How was this procedure introduced? Example, the current jeweller voting: Voting closed Voting on this proposal has been closed. It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18