Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

There I asked to form a working group for a project like this. Because I myself don't have the time or capacity to work on this alone. It would even be better when more people could participate in something like this On 25.02.2016 22:48, Dominic Coletti wrote: > I am not literate in German, but I

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

I am not literate in German, but I think the idea of a dedicated website to proposal, or at least a tool outside of the Wiki proper would be very helpful. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:46 PM Hakuch wrote: > On 25.02.2016 06:57, Marc Gemis wrote: > > How can we let more people with

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 25.02.2016 06:57, Marc Gemis wrote: > How can we let more people with more different backgrounds participate in > the tagging definition process ? And do we want this ? > > I have no idea. > just before I read this topic, I started a thread in the (german, sorry) forum to discuss about a

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

Taginfo is just reporting numbers. It can be hard to do a correct interpretation of those numbers - impact of an import / mechanical edit - impact of presets in editors - impact of a vocal member in a local community that is followed by a group of local mappers - impact of a crazy mapper (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

sent from a phone > Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Dominic Coletti : > > Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the > process. can you explain? I think taginfo is usually involved in the process, in the sense that people look tags up

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

I meant a more formal incorporation such as adjusting the votes required based on Taginfo data. That said, I fully support how we currently use it. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 13:32 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the process. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:39 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > Am 23.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > >>> Approval rate: 68.97%.

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

sent from a phone Am 23.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : >>> Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional >>> rejection; proposer to make final call. >> >> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people >> who voted".

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

On 2016년 02월 24일 11:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "there's not much we can do about it" - this is simply untrue. Editors > and map rendering have great power. With power comes responsibility. In my view the responsibility to make a map/rendering that distinguishes itself from all the commercial

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

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