Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
That's somewhat overstates the case. Adoption vs. non-adoption is the acid test of whether a proposal is acceptable or not, but the laissez-faire approach does let the tagging get stuck in local minima. For instance, the initial development of railway mashed together several distinct and independent attributes under one key: gauge between rails (railway=narrow_gauge, railway=miniature), type of service (railway=preserved), lifecycle (railway=disused, railway=abandoned, railway=construction). This works OK about 98% of the time, but sometimes these values come into conflict (a preserved narrow gauge railway that's disused due to washouts)? In retrospect, a little forethought would quickly have identified these problems and allowed us to draft a more expressive tagging scheme that would have avoided this. And one has, sort of, grown up around this (the gauge key, and OpenRailwayMap has started using railway:preserved=yes). But since we've also decided that, socially, mass retagging of old data is on a par with public defecation, we're more or less permanently stuck with the deficiencies of the original scheme that just grew. Don't get me wrong--I see a lot of the proposals that float across this list and it's clear that many proposed tagging schemes have a precision or level of detail that vastly exceeds what anyone will ever map. You could also, reasonably, argue that if we'd had a more complex railway tagging scheme initially, it would have hindered mapping, or that we only retrospectively know that the attributes I've listed are important to map because they became common under the initial scheme. The idea that the current process is the best possible way to develop tagging smacks of Dr. Pangloss. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: You're missing the point. OSM is already a meritocracy and tagging schemes either float or they don't, in the wild, under their own merit. There's no reforms that could be made to change this short of locking out the ability to use key and value combinations that aren't anointed. Good luck with that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
You're missing the point. OSM is already a meritocracy and tagging schemes either float or they don't, in the wild, under their own merit. There's no reforms that could be made to change this short of locking out the ability to use key and value combinations that aren't anointed. Good luck with that. On Feb 11, 2015 4:53 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/02/2015 4:34 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor. Yep. Thus things don't get approved due to lack of votes because few vote. And few vote because even a negative vote can cause the minimum number of required votes to be exceed, enabling an acceptance. And some want more that a simple majority in order to accept things. Thus the need to reform. Ok .. I can see that compulsion on voting won't work... So ... How about A 3 week minimum voting period - Gives people enough time fore a holiday and then think and caste vote. From this 3 week period the proposer may close the voting if a minimum number of votes are received and a 2/3rds majority vote for or against. At 6 weeks and onwards the proposer may close the voting no matter how few votes have been received and base the acceptance or failure on a simple majority. At one year the voting closes. No option, result on simple majority, if 50/50 then the proposal passes. This provides for a chance for people to vote, for consideration time, and at 6 weeks an incentive to vote as it can be called no matter how few have voted. I joined this group to effect changes in tagging things of interest to me. But the discussions inevitably go round and round with nary a thing getting resolved. If someone has what seems like a good idea there is always someone else who takes issue with it. The mailing lists and just going out and tagging seem to do more good than calling convoluted proposals and voting sessions, so there's that. For best results, get a working model going first. It's not like the database is going to kick out esoterickey=unknownvalue... Frankly, getting anything done is just too time consuming. Yep. Thus it needs reform. ___ 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 Voting system- time for reform?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: You're missing the point. OSM is already a meritocracy and tagging schemes either float or they don't, in the wild, under their own merit. There's no reforms that could be made to change this short of locking out the ability to use key and value combinations that aren't anointed. Good luck with that. Yet... the debate that the wiki vote system engenders often (not always) improves the tagging proposals. Thus, the broken wiki vote system has value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
On 2/02/2015 4:34 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor. Yep. Thus things don't get approved due to lack of votes because few vote. And few vote because even a negative vote can cause the minimum number of required votes to be exceed, enabling an acceptance. And some want more that a simple majority in order to accept things. Thus the need to reform. Ok .. I can see that compulsion on voting won't work... So ... How about A 3 week minimum voting period - Gives people enough time fore a holiday and then think and caste vote. From this 3 week period the proposer may close the voting if a minimum number of votes are received and a 2/3rds majority vote for or against. At 6 weeks and onwards the proposer may close the voting no matter how few votes have been received and base the acceptance or failure on a simple majority. At one year the voting closes. No option, result on simple majority, if 50/50 then the proposal passes. This provides for a chance for people to vote, for consideration time, and at 6 weeks an incentive to vote as it can be called no matter how few have voted. I joined this group to effect changes in tagging things of interest to me. But the discussions inevitably go round and round with nary a thing getting resolved. If someone has what seems like a good idea there is always someone else who takes issue with it. The mailing lists and just going out and tagging seem to do more good than calling convoluted proposals and voting sessions, so there's that. For best results, get a working model going first. It's not like the database is going to kick out esoterickey=unknownvalue... Frankly, getting anything done is just too time consuming. Yep. Thus it needs reform. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: And it seems for the most part, the tags with the most staying power seem to be ones that were natural fits, and *then* were documented *how they're actually used* in the wiki retroactively. A mostly +1 on that. The *problem* tags however are the ones with murky meaning, that can never be sorted out later without a field survey that will never happen. Oh FFS...I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I'll say it again: If you can cover my costs, I'll be happy to ground truth anyplace I can legally go with a US passport (which, as of this writing, seems to be everywhere but Cuba, Canada and North Korea) and figure it out. Honestly I'd rather be a cartographer for a living anyway... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor. I joined this group to effect changes in tagging things of interest to me. But the discussions inevitably go round and round with nary a thing getting resolved. If someone has what seems like a good idea there is always someone else who takes issue with it. The mailing lists and just going out and tagging seem to do more good than calling convoluted proposals and voting sessions, so there's that. For best results, get a working model going first. It's not like the database is going to kick out esoterickey=unknownvalue... Frankly, getting anything done is just too time consuming. I realize getting consensus on a topic is a difficult goal but I decided to just avoid using any controversial tags. There's enough basic mapping needed where I live to keep me plenty busy. This. Also glad Mapillary is a thing; I'm starting to try to use this to avoid having to rely so heavily on memory and searching geolocations on photos I've taken and hoping it happened to capture what I need... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
On 24/01/2015, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor. I'd like to defend the voting system a bit. In my opinion it's working fine. The only issue is that people have wrong expectations as to what voting provides. As has already been pointed out, there's no such thing as an OSM authority that can say this is the only correct way to map (and neither should there be). And the voters are a self-selected, non-representative, biased population. So what is voting good for ? I see it as just part of the discussion. It's easyer for people to vote than to post lenghty arguments on a mailing list or forum. Is proposition Foo generally accepted ? Look at taginfo, look at voting, view some current osm data. They're all important hints which will help you form an opinion. Maybe proposition Bar has been largely voted against, but I still really prefer it to the alternative and it seems like *some* people agree with me, so I take the votes into account but still make my own informed decision. The make up your own tag in concertation with others philosophy is deeply ingrained in OSM. Voting is just one of many layers on top of it. Reforming voting won't change the deeper nature of OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
And it seems for the most part, the tags with the most staying power seem to be ones that were natural fits, and *then* were documented *how they're actually used* in the wiki retroactively. A mostly +1 on that. The *problem* tags however are the ones with murky meaning, that can never be sorted out later without a field survey that will never happen. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
Scene 7. Ext. Prehistoric Planet FORD: You don’t seem to understand… MAN IN CROWD: No, no, no I just - MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: It’s a simple matter! It’s a procedural matter! That’s the point! CAPTAIN: Alright, alright, alright, alright! CHAIRMAN: I’d like to call this meeting to some sort of order, if that is at all possible. CROWD MEMBER: Care for a light drink sir? CHAIRMAN: Uh, not now love… FORD: Look! C’mon please! I mean everybody! there is some important news: we’ve made a discovery. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Is it on the agenda? FORD: Oh don’t give me that! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Well I’m sorry, but speaking as a fully trained management consultant I must insist on the importance of observing the committee structure. CROWD MEMBERS: Yeah, yeah, yeah!. FORD: On a prehistoric planet!? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Address the chair. CROWD MEMBERS: Yes. FORD: There isn’t a chair! There’s only a rock! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Well, call it a chair. FORD: Why not call it a rock? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: You - you obviously have no conception of modern business methods… FORD: And you have no conception of where the hell you are - MARKETING GIRL: Oh look shut up you two, just shut up! I want to table a motion. Guy: Boulder a motion you mean… FORD: Tha-Thank you I think I’ve made that point! Now listen! Someone: Order, Order! FORD: Oh God! CHAIRMAN: Listen! I would like to call to order the five-hundred-and-seventy-third meeting of the colonization committee of the planet of Fintlewoodlewix. And furthermore - FORD: Oh this is futile! Five-hundred-and-seventy-three committee meetings and you haven’t even discovered fire yet! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: If you would care to look at the agenda sheet - GUY: Agenda rock, yes… FORD: Oh, go on back home or something will ya? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: …you will see that we are about to have a report from the hairdressers fire development subcommittee today. HAIRDRESSER: That’s me. FORD: Yeah well you know what they’ve done don’t you? You gave them a couple of sticks and they’ve gone and developed them in to a pair of bloody scissors! MARKETING GIRL: When you have been in marketing as long as I have, you’ll know that before any new product can be developed, it has to be properly researched. I mean yes, yes we’ve got to find out what people want from fire, I mean how do they relate to it, the image - FORD: Oh, stick it up your nose. MARKETING GIRL: Yes which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know, I mean do people want fire that can be fitted nasally. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and, and, and the wheel. What about this wheel thingy? Sounds a terribly interesting project to me. MARKETING GIRL: Er, yeah, well we’re having a little, er, difficulty here… FORD: Difficulty?! It’s the single simplest machine in the entire universe! MARKETING GIRL: Well alright mister wise guy, if you’re so clever you tell us what colour it should be! FORD: Oh Mighty Zarquon! Has no-one done anything? MARKETING GIRL: And of course Finlon the producer has rescued a camera from the wreckage of the ship and is making a fascinating documentary on the indigenous cavemen of the area. FORD: Oh yes, and they’re dying out, have you noticed that? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Yes we must make a note sir to stop selling them life insurance. FORD: But don’t you understand? Just since we’ve arrived they’ve started dying out. MARKETING GIRL: Yes! Yes! And this comes over terribly well in the film that he’s making. I gather that he wants to, eh, make a documentary about you next captain. CAPTAIN: What? Oh. Oh really? That’s awfully nice. MARKETING GIRL: Oh, he’s got a very strong angle on it: you know the burden of responsibility, the loneliness of command… CAPTAIN: Ah well I wouldn’t overstress that angle you know, I mean one’s never alone with a rubber duck… MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Er, sir, er, skipper? CAPTAIN: Want a squeeze, eh? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Um listen, if we could, er, for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy - FORD: ”Fiscal Policy”?! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Yes. FORD: How can you have money if none of you actually produce anything? It doesn’t grow on trees you know! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: You know If you would allow me to continue! CAPTAIN: Yes let him to continue. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt leaves as legal tender, we have, of course all become immensely rich. FORD: No really? Really? CROWD MEMBERS: Yes, very good move… MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: But, we have also run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability. Which means that I gather the current going rate has something like three major deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut. So, um, in order to obviate this problem and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on an extensive defoliation campaign, and um, burn down all the forests. I think that’s a sensible move
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
There seems to be conflation of this list as having some kind of administrative function. It doesn't. This isn't an OSMF working group, it's a discussion list, and as such there is no administrative function for this list beyond the boundraries of the voting process on the wiki. In OSM, official tags have no greater status than unofficial ones. If you'd want to change that, you'd need to change things in OSM at a far more fundamental level, and (frankly), I'd be very hesistant to see this happen. I do think there'd be value in some practical tagging cleanup- moving from 2-3 tags meaning the same thing to a single tag, through some agreed-on process, but I don't think this is the right forum for it. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
Martin, Let me elaborate on what I mean by this not being the right forum. I agree with you that it should be. The problem is that in my time on this list- I've seen some pretty wacky ideas that go against what I think most OSMers would consider good tagging. I'd be worried about the results. - Serge On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! 2015-01-24 13:21 GMT+01:00 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com: There seems to be conflation of this list as having some kind of administrative function. It doesn't. This isn't an OSMF working group, it's a discussion list, and as such there is no administrative function for this list beyond the boundraries of the voting process on the wiki. In OSM, official tags have no greater status than unofficial ones. Fully agree. I want to quote one of our core values: OSM is not a hierarchical organisation; almost everything can be done without need for central sanction or even post-hoc approval. If you'd want to change that, you'd need to change things in OSM at a far more fundamental level, and (frankly), I'd be very hesistant to see this happen. If someone wants to change this and actually succeeds, I'll not be around here any more. And I guess I won't be the only one. I do think there'd be value in some practical tagging cleanup- moving from 2-3 tags meaning the same thing to a single tag, through some agreed-on process, Fully agree. but I don't think this is the right forum for it. Isn't it? Well, then at least it should be. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 1/23/15 8:37 PM, Warin wrote: Yes .. it makes the admin more complex. But it will get some to say something, and get others off the group. Flame away. i do not think it appropriate for the membership of this group to set these sorts of parameters for controlling its membership. it goes against the grain of OSM as a project. I think any body that dedicates itself to managing something aught to actually manage it - I think that is the reason this came up. But I think there is an even better reason that a lot of members don’t vote on proposals, besides a lack of enthusiasm in regards to what the tag fleshed out - a Lack of domain knowledge coupled with a lack of a (somewhat) rigid tagging schema that can be applied across similar groups of tags. For example - the discussion raging over semicolon delineated tag values vs sub-key values is something I have no relevant experience in, and I couldn’t comment on it, let alone feel comfortable voting. Similar to the water tap issue - I voted for the water tap because I want a way to tag taps - but the issues coming up now about it breaking compatibility of the dataset is something I similarly don’t know, and I will refrain from commenting now. Same with the Kiln questions in Tibet. But if there ware a more uniform tagging scheme then it would probably be obvious to a majority of the list members if a proposal *at least* properly fits into the format of tagging for a certain class of object (bus routes, water taps, and buildings are all going to have different schema, of course) but there are several classes of tags where there is no set “standard” on how to implement the class, which makes proposals in that class a nightmare because it just devolves into what implementation schema should be followed. Since there a lot of older established tags and schemes that don’t follow more recent patterns, it just be comes a quagmire of what of all possible schemes something could fall under. My recent proposal of Landuse=civic is a good case in point - does everything get it’s specific landuse from amenity=* , like a hospital or a school? does it get’s a basic idea of purpose from the landuse area, like residential or commercial land? or is the idea of separating out governmental/civic amenities disliked - and the only big distinction should be between civilian and military? Handling police, fire, judicial, penal, and governmental building’s landuse becomes a fight over what scheme is better - or what key scheme is best, and no one can agree on that. - a courthouse isn’t commercial land - a police station isn’t a residence, and a City hall is more than Just a building. Those basic questions hamstring discussions - then coupled with how the changes will affect the dataset means people will inherently shy away from voting on proposals - or proposals will languish because there can be no definitive answer on something like landuse, since there are two basic kinds of tags, and I don’t think anyone wants to depreciate amenity=hospital from it’s landuse duties, nor landuse=industrial. And most taggers probably don’t understand the intricacies of supporting semicolon delineated values, nor kilns in tibet - so it makes it hard for everyone to vote. Opinions of the noob Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
