> (especially those approved after, say, 2012) The proposal process became more difficult after March 2015, when the standard for approval was changed from >50% to >74%:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_process&type=revision&diff=1150734&oldid=1143140 This has been helpful in preventing bad ideas from being approved without consensus. But it has made it more likely that a proposal will not be approved, even though the majority accepts it. --Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, s8evq <s8e...@runbox.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote: > > > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I > > > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks > > > that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments > > > back and forth. > > > > If these arguments were given beforehand, perhaps the proposal could have changed, or opinions could have been changed? > > Honestly - I remember following the discussion on this mailing list > for a while and my impression was that the arguments _were_ given. > These arguments are not a surprise. Here's a version of this exact > argument in February: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051250.html > > Subsequent discussion here is an example of what happened. Some > people, _after having read the rationale offered_, think that a > separate tag is not warranted. Some people think that it is. You won't > win an argument by telling others they're wrong. > > > I hardly have any experience in proposals and the voting system. But I've seen 3 proposal so far, where I know the author doesn't want to bring it to vote, fearing the proposal would be rejected. The rationale behind it: status Rejected is worse than having the proposal in the "Draft" state forever. > > > > And then some people in this very thread suggest to just ignore a rejection and start using it anyway. What's the use of the whole voting system then? Why even bother writing a proposal in the first place? I'll just do whatever. > > Yeah I understand. I myself rejected Joseph's suggestion to make a tag > I used locally and documented on wiki into a "proposal", because I > don't want the hassle. > > My interpretation is that "approved" is a _lot_ higher status than "in > use", precisely because how harsh the proposal process is. That's just > I see it being in OSM - you can have in-use tags, locally-accepted > tags, and then the "approved" tags are really really accepted > (especially those approved after, say, 2012). > > Failing a proposal isn't a bad thing. Tag what you like. (With some > exceptions, like straight-up vandalism or trolltags) > > --Jarek
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging