Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

Hi

1.
The name is still something that bothers me. Clarity and transparency are 
importent for me.
I now understand that the name (and the description) of the feature must be 
very clear, easy to understand and general so that it can be used in different 
countries for similar concepts.

Thanks for the hint with ranked-choice voting, I am thinking about how we could 
implement this in OSM wiki. I'm open to suggestions.

2.
Currently I want to give more time for the Proposed features/food sharing.

I never seen a hiker box in the wild, I do not know if there is a similar thing 
in Switzerland. I can't say much about the nature of this thing. Based on the 
description, I would prefer to map them as a separate node, as we do with 
public bookcases located in a building. So we can add information on how Pepole 
can find them and other infos ("level=*", "description=*", "wheelchair=*"). I 
also not see the relation between a post office, shop, hotel or campsite and a 
hiker box. Are these places specialized for hikers?
As I have never seen a hiker box, I do not want to make a proposal of my own. 
But I would remove the amenity=give_box + hiking=yes from the description, like 
the public_bookcase, when someone makes a proposal.

As I understand, "blessing boxes" are more about food like a free pantry.
I agree I also think this is not a good name for this proposal.

Markus
Von: Philip Barnes<mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. März 2020 18:54
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 12:42 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi
After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining is the same as no vote" and the 
change of the Proposal process page I reopen the voting, maybe someone wants to 
change their vote or add a comment.

In the meantime we have got some new inputs:

Summary
- We hade discuss about give box, hiker box, public refrigerator, free pantry 
and food sharing and how this things could be documented in OpenStreetMap. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails
- New Proposed feature "food sharing" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing
- New Proposed feature "donation of goods" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods
- Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new amenity=give_box tag 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA


Thanks for your patience and perseverance, Markus!

It's clear that give boxes will be approved as a feature. The only remaining 
questions I see are:

1. What's the best tag for them? (Some people don't like "give_box" -- maybe an 
opportunity to experiment with ranked-choice voting?)

2. What related amenities are distinct enough that they deserve their own 
separate tags?
 - Public bookcase, obviously.
 - Separating the food sharing amenities seems like a good idea. I'd be in 
favor of a single tag to which refrigerated=yes could be added to indicate a 
public refrigerator.
 - I like the idea of a separate tag for hiker boxes, because (as I mentioned 
in the public refrigerator thread) it's very common to have them as part of 
another map feature like post office, shop, hotel, or campsite, so simply being 
able to add hiker_box=yes would be great.
 - I've never heard the term "blessing box" before but it seems like they'd 
best be classified as either food sharing or give box, depending on the 
inventory.
Blessing box sounds like some something religious to me, so not a good term for 
this proposal.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 12:42 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
> >  
> > A small facility where people drop off and
> >   pick up various types of items in the sense of free
> > sharing.
> >  
> > Hi
> > After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining
> >   is the same as no vote" and the change of the Proposal
> > process
> >   page I reopen the voting, maybe someone wants to change
> > their
> >   vote or add a comment.
> >  
> > In the meantime we have got some new
> >   inputs:
> >  
> > Summary
> > - We hade discuss about give box, hiker
> >   box, public refrigerator, free pantry and food sharing
> > and how
> >   this things could be documented in OpenStreetMap.
> >   
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails
> > - New Proposed feature "food sharing" 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing 
> > - New Proposed feature "donation of goods"
> >   
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods
> > 
> > - Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new
> >   amenity=give_box tag
> >   https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA 
> >  
> >   
> > 
> 
> Thanks for your patience and perseverance, Markus!
> It's clear that give boxes will be approved as a feature. The
>   only remaining questions I see are:
> 1. What's the best tag for them? (Some people don't like
>   "give_box" -- maybe an opportunity to experiment with
>   ranked-choice voting?) 
> 
> 
> 2. What related amenities are distinct enough that they deserve
>   their own separate tags?
> 
>- Public bookcase, obviously. 
> 
>- Separating the food sharing amenities seems like a good
> idea.
>   I'd be in favor of a single tag to which refrigerated=yes could
> be
>   added to indicate a public refrigerator.
> 
>- I like the idea of a separate tag for hiker boxes, because
> (as
>   I mentioned in the public refrigerator thread) it's very common
> to
>   have them as part of another map feature like post office,
> shop,
>   hotel, or campsite, so simply being able to add hiker_box=yes
>   would be great. 
> 
>- I've never heard the term "blessing box" before but it seems
>   like they'd best be classified as either food sharing or give
> box,
>   depending on the inventory.
> 
Blessing box sounds like some something religious to me, so not a good
term for this proposal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of
items in the sense of free sharing.

Hi

After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining is the same as no vote"
and the change of the Proposal process page I reopen the voting, maybe
someone wants to change their vote or add a comment.

In the meantime we have got some new inputs:

Summary

- We hade discuss about give box, hiker box, public refrigerator, free
pantry and food sharing and how this things could be documented in
OpenStreetMap.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails

- New Proposed feature "food sharing"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing

- New Proposed feature "donation of goods"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods

- Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new amenity=give_box tag
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA


Thanks for your patience and perseverance, Markus!

It's clear that give boxes will be approved as a feature. The only
remaining questions I see are:

1. What's the best tag for them? (Some people don't like "give_box" --
maybe an opportunity to experiment with ranked-choice voting?)

2. What related amenities are distinct enough that they deserve their
own separate tags?
 - Public bookcase, obviously.
 - Separating the food sharing amenities seems like a good idea. I'd be
in favor of a single tag to which refrigerated=yes could be added to
indicate a public refrigerator.
 - I like the idea of a separate tag for hiker boxes, because (as I
mentioned in the public refrigerator thread) it's very common to have
them as part of another map feature like post office, shop, hotel, or
campsite, so simply being able to add hiker_box=yes would be great.
 - I've never heard the term "blessing box" before but it seems like
they'd best be classified as either food sharing or give box, depending
on the inventory.

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi
After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining is the same as no vote" and the 
change of the Proposal process page I reopen the voting, maybe someone wants to 
change their vote or add a comment.

In the meantime we have got some new inputs:

Summary
- We hade discuss about give box, hiker box, public refrigerator, free pantry 
and food sharing and how this things could be documented in OpenStreetMap. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails
- New Proposed feature "food sharing" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing
- New Proposed feature "donation of goods" 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods
- Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new amenity=give_box tag 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA

Best regards
Markus (ToastHawaii)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:53, Peter Neale  wrote:

> Oh, so, the Wiki doesn't use standard British English then.?   Hmmm.
>

It uses standard, British informal English, rather than the technical
British
English used to describe voting procedures.


> Your final comment reminds me of my IT Course.  "Definition of Recursion:
> See Recursion". ;-)
>

It was intended to.  I was going to leave it as "Whether that should be the
case going forward is something we could vote on." but worried that not many
people would spot the recursive aspect.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Oh, so, the Wiki doesn't use standard British English then.?   Hmmm.  
Your final comment reminds me of my IT Course.  "Definition of Recursion: See 
Recursion". ;-)
Regards,Peter

   >On Thursday, 6 February 2020, 17:39:35 GMT, Paul Allen  
wrote:  
 
 >On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:09, Peter Neale via Tagging 
 > wrote:


"abstain  /əbˈsteɪn/verb[...]
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries"
So an abstention is NOT a vote

>I thought I gave a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention>but I must 
>have forgotten.  I'll include the relevant parts here.

> Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote 
> either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, 
> is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.[1] Abstention must be 
> contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made 
> invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all. A "blank (or 
> white) voter" has voted, although their vote may be considered a spoilt vote, 

>So what we have in the approval process, despite being called an 
>abstention,>is NOT an abstention.  It's a blank vote, aka white vote, because 
>a ballot has>been cast.  The wiki confuses the terms "ballot" and "vote" in 
>places, as well>as misusing the term "abstention."

>Also, 
>Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when 
>members abstain, they are in effect attending only to contribute to a quorum. 
>White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the 
>legislation. 
>The "legislation" (in this case past consensus of how things operate) was 
>that>blank/white votes ARE counted in the total of votes.  Whether that should 
>be the>case going forward is something we could vote on.  After we've voted on 
>the>rules for voting.  After we've voted on the rules for voting on the rules 
>for>voting.

-- 
>Paul
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 2/6/2020 10:47 AM, Paul Allen wrote:

And if they wanted to comment but not vote they'd add their comment to the
talk page instead.  Right?


Absolutely! If that's what the instructions said. But they clearly say
that if you do want to comment, but you don't want to vote, then choose
"abstain."

J


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:19, Jmapb via Tagging 
wrote:

> The current description of "approved" on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process is:
>
> > A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or at
> least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval
>
Reading that, and that alone, abstentions count.  10 people vote yes, 5
people
vote no, and 5 people vote to abstain.  Therefore, of all the votes cast,
only
50% approve.  There are hundreds of people who could have voted, but of
those that bothered to vote, 5 abstained.  And that's the point: they
bothered to
vote in a way that was NOT "approve."  They aren't in the silent hundreds
who do not participate, they participate and they do NOT approve (which is
not the same thing as disapproval).

> The current description of "abstain" on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposal_Page is:
> > If you don't want to vote but have comments
>
That contradicts the implications of the "74%" sentence.  And both
contradict
the technical meaning of abstention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
because an abstention means that no vote is cast. In the tagging vote, what
is
referred to as an abstention is technically a spoilt vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote
In some jurisdictions, spoilt votes ARE counted, and it appears that in the
past
tagging votes have treated spoilt votes as if they count.

> Someone who chooses "abstain" according to this template presumably
> believes they are merely commenting, *not* voting. If they wanted their
> vote to count as the equivalent to "no," they'd vote "no"... right?
>
And if they wanted to comment but not vote they'd add their comment to the
talk page instead.  Right?

> Maybe the "abstain" option should be removed altogether. But in the
> meantime it seems irregular to tally votes according to different rules
> than those that were documented when the vote occurred.
>
Those rules are somewhat open to interpretation.  It would be good to
clarify
them, if we can agree on what they actually mean and/or what they ought
to mean (I have some doubts that we can).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb via Tagging]

[Sorry for the repost, corrected wiki link below...]

On 2/6/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment
(vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to
the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a
no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and
maybe also voted upon).

That *is* how it's currently documented -- and if abstain is intended to
be counted equivalent to no, then the proposal documentation should
change to reflect this.

The current description of "approved" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process is:
> A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or
at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval

The current description of "abstain" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_feature_voting is:
> If you don't want to vote but have comments

Someone who chooses "abstain" according to this template presumably
believes they are merely commenting, *not* voting. If they wanted their
vote to count as the equivalent to "no," they'd vote "no"... right?

Maybe the "abstain" option should be removed altogether. But in the
meantime it seems irregular to tally votes according to different rules
than those that were documented when the vote occurred.

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 2/6/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment
(vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to
the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a
no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and
maybe also voted upon).

That *is* how it's currently documented -- and if abstain is intended to
be counted equivalent to no, then the proposal documentation should
change to reflect this.

The current description of "approved" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process is:
> A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or
at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval

The current description of "abstain" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposal_Page is:
> If you don't want to vote but have comments

Someone who chooses "abstain" according to this template presumably
believes they are merely commenting, *not* voting. If they wanted their
vote to count as the equivalent to "no," they'd vote "no"... right?

Maybe the "abstain" option should be removed altogether. But in the
meantime it seems irregular to tally votes according to different rules
than those that were documented when the vote occurred.

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[ael]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:22:13AM +, marc marc wrote:
> i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the

Eh, except that OSM is supposed to use British English, and "diaper"
should be nappy.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
>
> (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along
> with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
> "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
>
> But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
> reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
> even 50%?
>


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment (vote
yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to the
situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and maybe
also voted upon).



> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
>


+1, although not a requirement, it should ideally be like this. Sometimes
the "nay-sayers" do not have real arguments (something like "the amenity
tag is overcrowded" is not an argument, IMHO), so its hard to reply with
something to convince them.



> One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
> positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
> anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest this is
> the usual way to do it.
>


You can (and some do) agree with a comment, I would not require this, at
the time of voting, there already have been lots of discussions and shared
arguments, usually, so a confirmation of the result should be sufficient.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

Hello Joseph Eisenberg

Thanks for your input and your intention to keep this wiki clear.

I did not count "abstain" as part of the vote total and I don't see any good 
reason for doing that.

The discussion about the name, was early in the voting. After that the people 
still voted "yes".

There are good reasons to use "give box" because it is a well-known and 
existing concept in several European countries.

But maybe some people want a different Name:

I had extended the voting period until 8 February. Feel free to change your 
mind and vote "no" if you want another name.

Please give a clear statement. I will only count "yes" and "no" as part of the 
total.
It is also helpful if you vote "yes" and give a clear comment about the name.

Currently my second choice would be "free box".

Best regards,
Markus Peloso
Von: Joseph Eisenberg<mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2020 15:00
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
the 74% cut-off.

I don't think this should be considered "approved". There were several
comments that "free box" or something else that is more common in
British English should be considered instead.

More important than the number of votes is whether signficant problems
and objections have been addressed. In this case, the concern is that
"give box" is quite rare in Britain and other native English-speaking
countries, and is not unambiguous.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/5/20, Markus Peloso  wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgive_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing and reuse.
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for voting and for the inputs. Based on the result «13 votes for, 1
> vote against and 5 abstentions» I set the status to approved :D.
>
> Best regards,
> Markus
>
> Von: Markus Peloso<mailto:mar@outlook.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 09:42
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related
> tools<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Betreff: Feature Proposal - Voting - give box
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing.
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.
>
> I request for voting now.
>
> Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the name.
> Then please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on the result
> I will made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested names are:
> • amenity=free_box
> • amenity=free_goods
> • amenity=give_take_box
> • shop=freeshop
>
> Best regards,
> Markus
>
> Von: Markus Peloso<mailto:mar@outlook.com>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing.
>
> Hi
>
> Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to
> understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and
> notes to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear
> specification of this tag.
>
> Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good
> to see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a
> section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing
> tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific
> then the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it.
> IMO someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.
>
> Von: Markus Peloso<mailto:mar@outlook.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Betreff: AW: Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>
> A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the
> sense of free sharing.
>
> Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D
>
> I have updated the proposed.
>
> I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a
> combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gif

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Warin]

On 6/2/20 5:13 pm, European Water Project wrote:

I see good arguments on both sides 

but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to put 
substance over form.


Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective measurements (vote 
ratio), but that if enough people post facto see enough flaws that it 
can be temporarily suspended.






To help motivate authors, maybe the burden for getting an alternative 
tag implemented can be shifted to the naysayers. ie if they don't 
develop a new tag, the previous proposal goes through ...



The above idea I like!



Best regards,

Stuart



On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 01:23, marc marc > wrote:


the proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one) have
often 2 flaws:
- often too big (not this one)
- often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks to make
that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the proposal
(with the risk that its author gets demotivated) or to accept it
hoping
that the defects will be corrected later (which is always much more
difficult in the osm world).
with your opinion, I would have voted against it without hesitation.
because it's the best way to improve what you think should be
improved.
i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the
idea, i voted against the first version because of the negative
elements
it contained.

Le 06.02.20 à 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
>
> (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained,
along
> with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
> "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
>
> But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
> reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
> even 50%?
>
> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
>
> One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
> positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
> anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest
this is
> the usual way to do it.
>
> This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of approved vs
> disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
>>> exactly like "vote against".
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14
votes
>> with just under 93% approving.
>>
>>



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[European Water Project]

I see good arguments on both sides 

but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to put substance
over form.

Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective measurements (vote
ratio), but that if enough people post facto see enough flaws that it can
be temporarily suspended.

To help motivate authors, maybe the burden for getting an alternative tag
implemented can be shifted to the naysayers. ie if they don't develop a new
tag, the previous proposal goes through ...

Best regards,

Stuart



On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 01:23, marc marc  wrote:

> the proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one) have
> often 2 flaws:
> - often too big (not this one)
> - often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks to make
> that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the proposal
> (with the risk that its author gets demotivated) or to accept it hoping
> that the defects will be corrected later (which is always much more
> difficult in the osm world).
> with your opinion, I would have voted against it without hesitation.
> because it's the best way to improve what you think should be improved.
> i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the
> idea, i voted against the first version because of the negative elements
> it contained.
>
> Le 06.02.20 à 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> > Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
> >
> > (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along
> > with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
> > "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
> >
> > But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
> > reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
> > even 50%?
> >
> > Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> > shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
> >
> > One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
> > positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
> > anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest this is
> > the usual way to do it.
> >
> > This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of approved vs
> > disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.
> >
> > - Joseph Eisenberg
> >
> > On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> >> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> >>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
> >>> exactly like "vote against".
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14 votes
> >> with just under 93% approving.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[marc marc]

the proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one) have
often 2 flaws:
- often too big (not this one)
- often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks to make
that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the proposal
(with the risk that its author gets demotivated) or to accept it hoping
that the defects will be corrected later (which is always much more
difficult in the osm world).
with your opinion, I would have voted against it without hesitation.
because it's the best way to improve what you think should be improved.
i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the
idea, i voted against the first version because of the negative elements
it contained.

Le 06.02.20 à 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
> 
> (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along
> with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
> "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
> 
> But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
> reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
> even 50%?
> 
> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
> 
> One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
> positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
> anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest this is
> the usual way to do it.
> 
> This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of approved vs
> disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
>>> exactly like "vote against".
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14 votes
>> with just under 93% approving.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.

(For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along
with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
"give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)

But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
even 50%?

Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?

One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest this is
the usual way to do it.

This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of approved vs
disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
>> exactly like "vote against".
>>
>
> +1
>
> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14 votes
> with just under 93% approving.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Andrew Davidson]

On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
exactly like "vote against".



+1

To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14 votes 
with just under 93% approving.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
 exactly like "vote against".


Feb 5, 2020, 14:58 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
> the 74% cut-off.
>
> I don't think this should be considered "approved". There were several
> comments that "free box" or something else that is more common in
> British English should be considered instead.
>
> More important than the number of votes is whether signficant problems
> and objections have been addressed. In this case, the concern is that
> "give box" is quite rare in Britain and other native English-speaking
> countries, and is not unambiguous.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 2/5/20, Markus Peloso  wrote:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgive_box
>>
>> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
>> the sense of free sharing and reuse.
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks for voting and for the inputs. Based on the result «13 votes for, 1
>> vote against and 5 abstentions» I set the status to approved :D.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Markus
>>
>> Von: Markus Peloso
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 09:42
>> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related
>> tools
>> Betreff: Feature Proposal - Voting - give box
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>>
>> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
>> the sense of free sharing.
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.
>>
>> I request for voting now.
>>
>> Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the name.
>> Then please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on the result
>> I will made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested names are:
>>  • amenity=free_box
>>  • amenity=free_goods
>>  • amenity=give_take_box
>>  • shop=freeshop
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Markus
>>
>> Von: Markus Peloso
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26
>> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>>
>> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
>> the sense of free sharing.
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to
>> understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and
>> notes to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear
>> specification of this tag.
>>
>> Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good
>> to see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a
>> section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing
>> tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific
>> then the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it.
>> IMO someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.
>>
>> Von: Markus Peloso
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
>> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> Betreff: AW: Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>>
>> A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the
>> sense of free sharing.
>>
>> Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D
>>
>> I have updated the proposed.
>>
>> I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a
>> combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gift icon.
>>
>> I change the tag name to give_box.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>> Because the name Givebox is used by a website that provides fundraising
>> tools.
>>
>> The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:
>>
>> + Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
>> + I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of this
>> facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating and
>> free taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar.
>> + Give box is not overused for other things found in the internet, eg.
>> internet modems.
>>
>> "reuse" is to generic, eg. someone can tag a fridge with amenity=reuse and
>> reuse=fridge, to document a place to share food. But I think this kind of
>> facility deserves its own tag.
>> I think the tag "reuse" is currently only used because there is no other tag
>> for this kind of facility.
>>
>> Give boxes are some kind of public storage room/space in the sense of giving
>> and reuse. I think the "free store" (German "Umsonstladen") in Germany is
>> more a give box as a store. As I read, even the shelf's in the "free store"
>> ("Umsonstladen") are brought by 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb]

On 2/5/2020 8:58 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
the 74% cut-off.


Is it normal to count abstentions as part of the vote total? The
proposal template text (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_feature_voting )
says "I have comments but abstain from voting" followed by the
description "If you don't want to vote but have comments." Unless
there's a clear precedent otherwise, it sounds like "abstain" should not
be part of the vote count.

If abstentions did count in the vote total, then mathematically there'd
be no difference between "oppose" and "abstain," and it would be
impossible to leave comments without affecting the voting.

Jason


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
the 74% cut-off.

I don't think this should be considered "approved". There were several
comments that "free box" or something else that is more common in
British English should be considered instead.

More important than the number of votes is whether signficant problems
and objections have been addressed. In this case, the concern is that
"give box" is quite rare in Britain and other native English-speaking
countries, and is not unambiguous.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/5/20, Markus Peloso  wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgive_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing and reuse.
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for voting and for the inputs. Based on the result «13 votes for, 1
> vote against and 5 abstentions» I set the status to approved :D.
>
> Best regards,
> Markus
>
> Von: Markus Peloso
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 09:42
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related
> tools
> Betreff: Feature Proposal - Voting - give box
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing.
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.
>
> I request for voting now.
>
> Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the name.
> Then please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on the result
> I will made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested names are:
> • amenity=free_box
> • amenity=free_goods
> • amenity=give_take_box
> • shop=freeshop
>
> Best regards,
> Markus
>
> Von: Markus Peloso
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing.
>
> Hi
>
> Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to
> understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and
> notes to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear
> specification of this tag.
>
> Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good
> to see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a
> section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing
> tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific
> then the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it.
> IMO someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.
>
> Von: Markus Peloso
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: AW: Feature Proposal - RFC - give box
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
>
> A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the
> sense of free sharing.
>
> Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D
>
> I have updated the proposed.
>
> I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a
> combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gift icon.
>
> I change the tag name to give_box.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
> Because the name Givebox is used by a website that provides fundraising
> tools.
>
> The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:
>
> + Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
> + I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of this
> facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating and
> free taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar.
> + Give box is not overused for other things found in the internet, eg.
> internet modems.
>
> "reuse" is to generic, eg. someone can tag a fridge with amenity=reuse and
> reuse=fridge, to document a place to share food. But I think this kind of
> facility deserves its own tag.
> I think the tag "reuse" is currently only used because there is no other tag
> for this kind of facility.
>
> Give boxes are some kind of public storage room/space in the sense of giving
> and reuse. I think the "free store" (German "Umsonstladen") in Germany is
> more a give box as a store. As I read, even the shelf's in the "free store"
> ("Umsonstladen") are brought by the community, that's more something like a
> public storage room. In a store I would except employees who eg. place the
> items on the shelves. That's way a give box is not a shop=charity or
> shop=second_hand. The idea and organization behind a "free store" (German
> 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgive_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing and reuse.

Hi

Thanks for voting and for the inputs. Based on the result «13 votes for, 1 vote 
against and 5 abstentions» I set the status to approved :D.

Best regards,
Markus

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 09:42
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.

I request for voting now.

Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the name. Then 
please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on the result I will 
made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested names are:
• amenity=free_box
• amenity=free_goods
• amenity=give_take_box
• shop=freeshop

Best regards,
Markus

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to 
understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and notes 
to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear specification of 
this tag.

Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good to 
see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a 
section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing 
tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific then 
the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it. IMO 
someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: AW: Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the 
sense of free sharing.

Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D

I have updated the proposed.

I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a 
combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gift icon.

I change the tag name to give_box. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
Because the name Givebox is used by a website that provides fundraising tools.

The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:

+ Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
+ I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of this 
facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating and free 
taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar.
+ Give box is not overused for other things found in the internet, eg. internet 
modems.

"reuse" is to generic, eg. someone can tag a fridge with amenity=reuse and 
reuse=fridge, to document a place to share food. But I think this kind of 
facility deserves its own tag.
I think the tag "reuse" is currently only used because there is no other tag 
for this kind of facility.

Give boxes are some kind of public storage room/space in the sense of giving 
and reuse. I think the "free store" (German "Umsonstladen") in Germany is more 
a give box as a store. As I read, even the shelf's in the "free store" 
("Umsonstladen") are brought by the community, that's more something like a 
public storage room. In a store I would except employees who eg. place the 
items on the shelves. That's way a give box is not a shop=charity or 
shop=second_hand. The idea and organization behind a "free store" (German 
"Umsonstladen") and "Give box" are the same, they differ only in the storage 
space size. A shack can also be named as a store. This makes a clear 
distinction difficult. As abstraction for OSM, I think we can use the same tag.

free_box would be my second choice. I would like to solve it democratically. In 
two weeks I would like to vote on give_box. If you prefer free_box then vote 
against it and write it in the comment of the vote. Then I change it and do a 
second vote for free_box.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Januar 2020 23:41
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb]

On 1/21/2020 3:42 AM, Markus Peloso wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of
items in the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.

*I request for voting now.*

Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the
name. Then please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on
the result I will made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested
names are:

• amenity=free_box

    • amenity=free_goods

    • amenity=give_take_box

    • shop=freeshop

Best regards,

Markus


Thanks Markus -- I added a photo of a "Free art" box for the gallery. 
If anyone has a photo of a hiker box (something like this:
https://photos.thetrek.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/12101802/EEB4E5C5-EAFA-4059-A0AA-3AF6DD324552-700x525.jpeg
) I think it would make a good addition.

Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.

I request for voting now.

Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the name. Then 
please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on the result I will 
made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested names are:
• amenity=free_box
• amenity=free_goods
• amenity=give_take_box
• shop=freeshop

Best regards,
Markus

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to 
understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and notes 
to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear specification of 
this tag.

Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good to 
see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a 
section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing 
tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific then 
the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it. IMO 
someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: AW: Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the 
sense of free sharing.

Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D

I have updated the proposed.

I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a 
combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gift icon.

I change the tag name to give_box. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
Because the name Givebox is used by a website that provides fundraising tools.

The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:

+ Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
+ I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of this 
facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating and free 
taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar.
+ Give box is not overused for other things found in the internet, eg. internet 
modems.

"reuse" is to generic, eg. someone can tag a fridge with amenity=reuse and 
reuse=fridge, to document a place to share food. But I think this kind of 
facility deserves its own tag.
I think the tag "reuse" is currently only used because there is no other tag 
for this kind of facility.

Give boxes are some kind of public storage room/space in the sense of giving 
and reuse. I think the "free store" (German "Umsonstladen") in Germany is more 
a give box as a store. As I read, even the shelf's in the "free store" 
("Umsonstladen") are brought by the community, that's more something like a 
public storage room. In a store I would except employees who eg. place the 
items on the shelves. That's way a give box is not a shop=charity or 
shop=second_hand. The idea and organization behind a "free store" (German 
"Umsonstladen") and "Give box" are the same, they differ only in the storage 
space size. A shack can also be named as a store. This makes a clear 
distinction difficult. As abstraction for OSM, I think we can use the same tag.

free_box would be my second choice. I would like to solve it democratically. In 
two weeks I would like to vote on give_box. If you prefer free_box then vote 
against it and write it in the comment of the vote. Then I change it and do a 
second vote for free_box.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Januar 2020 23:41
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Givebox

A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the 
sense of free sharing.

Hi

Based on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reuse and 
the  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bookcase tag I 
describe a tag for facilities similar to public bookcases but with all kinds of 
(none food) goods.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging