+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.
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. . On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 24/01/2015 11:51 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: ON the subject of >> man_made=tap >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Pieren <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are >>> > approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes >>> > (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with >>> > clean up. >>> >>> >> In fact, the proposal passed the wiki vote ONLY because the three >> people voted no at the >> last minute. If it were not for those 'no' votes, the proposal would >> have failed. >> >> All that shows in part how dysfunctional the wiki vote system is >> >> Here here! >> It also shows how dysfunctional this group is .. not many of you vote! >> > > OK, well, I'm going to have to swap out my normal role as the crazy map > bear <http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Paul%20Johnson> for a minute to be the > unpopular opinion puffin: Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless > endeavor. And I don't mean like pointless like being one of the (far too > few) voters who isn't too insane or stupid to be able to hold down a day > job, yet willing to risk taking a half-day off work on a non-holiday > Tuesday off to actually go vote in Oklahoma, where voting could actually > have an impact if the non-insane idiot contingent could actually get a > quorum over the elections regulars. But actually, entirely pointless, > since tags reach a uniform consensus not by how they're decreed in some > wiki through a convoluted proposal and elections process, but by people who > just start using them. > > 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. > > >> I would suggest >> 1) Continued membership of this group be conditional on voting on at >> least half the tags presented for voting over say the last year. >> 2) Rejoining members be conditional on voting on at least 8 of the next >> 10 tags presented for voting. >> 3) Tag voting may only cease when at least 25%? of the tag group members >> have voted and 3? weeks have elapsed. >> > > I say scrap the whole thing and let the wiki document the map much like > the map documents the ground truth. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
