2015-03-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo <[email protected]>: > On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. > > +1 to all that. While I think that "voting" is very usefull, I think > the whole concept of "accepting" a proposal (all the related arguments > about voter thresholds) should be scraped entirely. > > Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag > pages : > * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) > * proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current > list of supporters/opponents) > * ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe > using a "used/encouraged/discouraged by <link>" template > * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively > * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a > change in the proposal changes their opinion > * proposals should only be "end-of-lifed" if there is near-unanimous > opposition and near-zero actual usage > > This should clarify the old question of whether the wiki does/should > document usage or intent. It'll allow competing proposals to coexist > more visibly. It keeps the interesting "opinion poll" use of voting, > while removing the obnoxious "proposal is ready ! vote now so that we > can start using it !" calls. >
Very good ideas and it would bring the original intention of OSM back into the play: the numbers count and not the two-and-a-half people putting a line starting with "yes" somewhere in the wiki. Full support for this at least from my side. br, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
