2008/3/20, Ulf Lamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dave Stubbs schrieb: > > I think the problem is the use of the language in regard to the > > feature itself. A single person approving of a tag is obviously fine, > > but once a vote happens, and about 10 people approve of it, the tag > > then becomes an Approved Tag... or at least some people think it > > does.. this obfuscates the rather limited source of approval. > > > If there are 10 people thinking about a tag and no one disagrees, this - > to my experience - is a *very good* indication that the tag is in fact > well worked out. Usually it's the other way round, there are 10 people > with at least 2 or 3 different points of view and even after the > proposal was discussed for some time and it comes to voting more than > 50% of the votes just fail. So the approval is not that weak as you may > seem to think. > > And what's the alternative? Having no approval (or call it > recommendation, or whatever, I don't care) at all and let the current > mood of one of the developers be the best way to decide things? > > To my experience a proposal gone through discussion *and* voting is > usually very clear how to use and therefore needs much less discussion > afterwards. And voting is one important reason of this output, as this > points out if there are still disputes or open points once the > "discussion dust" settled a bit. > > Deprecation has a similar but more annoying problem... a bunch of > > people on the wiki decide they don't use a tag or have a better way, > > so essentially disapprove of it. It then gets marked as "deprecated" > > to the complete confusion of the active mappers who are happily using > > it and actually approve of it but weren't around for the vote. > > > Well: > 1. deprecation really *rarely* takes place > 2. I've only seen deprecation of tags that had real issues, so there was > a good reason to change it > > Yes I know, in six month from now the evil guys from OS will come and > deprecate all of our current OSM tags in one big rush - and the whole > project will fall into a big black hole ;-) > > I don't really think it's the language that's the main problem so much > > as the opaqueness and finality presumed in the end result > Sorry, but I can't see any opaqueness and finality. For each proposal > you can read the discussion and voting - where's the opaqueness? If we > find out in three months or so that a tag was a bad idea - we can easily > start a new proposal and change it again - where's the finality? > > There's a lot of criticism about voting. But unfortunately - and let me > state that again - *no one* came up with a better way to find a good > agreement that may last some time. > > Regards, ULFL
+1 I cant see a real problem about the current voting system. Its a good thing that the entire process is taking place on the wiki and not in some (archive of the) mailing list or even a cluttered forum thread. One of my favorite features (being a hiker an cyclist) is amenity=shelter - this feature is in proposal state since 12/2006 because there are questions and doubts remaining, and thats no problem at all, but a good thing! It also doesnt stop anyone from putting said feature into the DB, I already added 40+ amenity=shelter and since about a week, the cycle map renders them. No problem. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
