Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

sent from a phone > On 7. Feb 2019, at 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > So would you call that tag approved, widely used, informal or what? it’s already well used and now with the new documentation in some time you’ll see if your page gets contested or improved, or is already perfect

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Humm document that it is not known what it is, that the original mappers > fail to respond? > That too. But mainly document that the general consensus is that it is best handled by a multipolygon with a naked area playing the

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 08/02/19 01:02, Sergio Manzi wrote: I don't really know where I was at that times, mostly because I don't know when that times where, honestly. Should I feel ashamed? I wasn't criticizing the rationale for having a better wording for the status of that kind of "/debatable/" tags, but

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 23:59, Paul Allen wrote: > > There's a hierarchy of tag acceptability based upon how much forethought > has gone into it. > Proposed and approved. Proposed and rejected. Proposed and lapsed. > Widely used. > Used once or twice. Used once by somebody who didn't know there

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

I don't really know where I was at that times, mostly because I don't know when that times where, honestly. Should I feel ashamed? I wasn't criticizing the rationale for having a better wording for the status of that kind of "/debatable/" tags, but only the wording you proposed. Cheers,

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 13:24, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Or am I missing your point totally? > There's a hierarchy of tag acceptability based upon how much forethought has gone into it. Proposed and approved. Proposed and rejected. Proposed and lapsed. Widely used. Used once or twice. Used

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 13:23, Sergio Manzi wrote: > "*ad hoc*" (for this) signifies a solution designed for a specific > problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be > adapted to other purposes. > > "*extempore*" (or more correctly "*ex tempore*", "from the time") means

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

@Paul Agreed, and you still must produce a new Wiki page regardless. That's the process most people, including me, try to avoid. Hell, even if we all agreed that a new "category" for Wiki tagging-related pages (which is what I presume we're talking about here) is a good idea, it's a long way from

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

"/ad hoc/" (for this)  signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes. "/extempore/" (or more correctly "/ex tempore/", "from the time") means something done without preparation or forethought, as if

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 12:12, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I like the idea of the "informal" category but isn't that more or less the > same as "proposed"? > The proposal process is formal. It's documented, people scream at you if you don't do it exactly right, etc. Doesn't matter if the tag gets

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

" Maybe I should eschew obfuscation." +1 LOL. We have enough problems with English here - no need to add Latin to our already strained conversations. I like the idea of the "informal" category but isn't that more or less the same as "proposed"? IMO, the main difficulty with keeping the Wiki

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 10:52, Markus wrote: > > Perhaps it would help though, if the status on the wiki page were more > clear and prominent – maybe a different page colour and a status of > 'informal' instead of 'in use' for those non-standard tags. > Just to get into the spirit of things. };-)

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 21:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > [...] > > This is a scenario in which, as far as I can tell, Mary and Mike have > done everything right, but the community has failed them. Which of > these likely outcomes is the 'least worst'? > > We have a formal rule of "any tags you like",

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:56 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is > great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) > members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call >

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is > great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) > members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call >

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 06:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > This is a scenario in which, as far as I can tell, Mary and Mike have > done everything right, but the community has failed them. Which of > these likely outcomes is the 'least worst'? > Thanks Kevin, unfortunately you've summed up fairly well

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 06/02/19 07:59, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny > wrote: The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist. Someone else insists

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent > the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist. > Someone else insists that betas are really just another kind of bees. > A third person insists that

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:20 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features > until they become de-facto. In use means at least one occurrence. > > There is also “rejected” among the possible status values, I don’t think you > suggest to

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 06/02/19 07:23, Markus wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features until they become de-facto. I think this is sensible. A tag page with 'in use' status is confusing because it can give the

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features > until they become de-facto. I think this is sensible. A tag page with 'in use' status is confusing because it can give the impression that this tag is de facto

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

sent from a phone > On 5. Feb 2019, at 15:35, Hufkratzer wrote: > > I don't think that a key/tag must have reached the "de-facto" limit before it > can have its own wiki page in the key/tag namespace, otherwise it would not > make sense that the templates KeyDescription and ValueDescripton

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04.02.2019 13:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: [...] If the thing makes sense, sooner or later you will get the numbers to mark it "de-facto" even without any voting or tagging maliing list interactions. Which are the numbers for "de-facto" and for "in use"? I couldn't find any

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04/02/19 21:04, Hufkratzer wrote: Somewhere (I don't know where it was) I read that a new tag has to be used about 100 times before it can be documented on an a new wiki page in the key/tag namespace. 100 looks like an arbitrary number. Very easy to achieve with common things , like

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:05, Hufkratzer wrote: > > [...] If we allow that everyone can create a new wiki page in the key/tag > namespace for a tag that is used only twice and list this tag on the *main* > features page the will become next to useless for the occasional user. + 1

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann : > While i agree on this particular case your distinction can be easily > misread to mean that mappers must not invent new keys or that they have > to write a proposal for them. > writing a proposal _is_ documentation, and I cannot

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Monday 04 February 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > * invent keys - ok > > * document widely used/established keys that never went through a > proposal process - ok > > * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or > established - questionable > > * the whole thing done by

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 01:45 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann : > On Monday 04 February 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > But creating such a page or adding such tags to map features overview > > pages is misleading when there is basically no or very few usage. > > These tags should be

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04.02.2019 08:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: * invent keys - ok * document widely used/established keys that never went through a proposal process - ok * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or established - questionable * the whole thing done by someone who has in the past

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04.02.2019 10:27, Warin wrote: On 04/02/19 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without creating a proposal. * invent keys -

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04/02/19 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without creating a proposal. * invent keys - ok * document widely

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

Hi, On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all > right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without > creating a proposal. * invent keys - ok * document widely used/established keys that never went through a

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Monday 04 February 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > But creating such a page or adding such tags to map features overview > pages is misleading when there is basically no or very few usage. > These tags should be documented as well, but the right place to do it > is in the proposal

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

sent from a phone > On 4. Feb 2019, at 00:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Correct. In fact documenting tags - even little used ones should be > encouraged. > > Further the documentation does not need to be placed in the proposal space, > particularly if the person has no

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04/02/19 10:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Sunday 03 February 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I noticed today that a wiki page for the rarely used key "motorcycle:scale" had been accidentally created as "Key:motorcycle:scale" thank you for this. You are known to put things polite, in all

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Sunday 03 February 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I noticed today that a wiki page for the rarely used key > > "motorcycle:scale" had been accidentally created as > > "Key:motorcycle:scale" > > thank you for this. You are known to put things polite, in all > honesty, there are good

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

sent from a phone > On 3. Feb 2019, at 21:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I noticed today that a wiki page for the rarely used key > "motorcycle:scale" had been accidentally created as > "Key:motorcycle:scale" thank you for this. You are known to put things polite, in all honesty, there are

[Tagging] motorcycle:scale

Hi, I noticed today that a wiki page for the rarely used key "motorcycle:scale" had been accidentally created as "Key:motorcycle:scale", and moved it to "Proposed features/motorcycle:scale". I haven't made any further edits to it though. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail