On Saturday 15 Aug 2009 13:09:41 Mike Harris wrote: > Kai - this makes very good sense. But how do we set up a working group? And > would it - and its findings/recommendations - be acceptable to the majority > of the OSM community?
I also think Kai's proposal makes a lot of sense. I suspect the best way to approach this would be for a group of people to just give it a go - start a group in the next couple of weeks on a particular topic, and try the process out. Probably sensible to start with something more manageable than path/highway. Maybe the forest/wood debate. The one missing part to work out is how we respond to the proposal. The best thing I can imagine is if we could set-up a poll that uses our OSM.org logins and we notify as many users as possible through every channel available. We could set the bar at something like >1000 votes and a 66% majority needed. Regards, Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: k...@vielevisels [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 15 August 2009 11:13 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [english 95%] A process for rethinking map features > > Hi, > what's our present way: Someone makes a proposal, some other people make > their own suggestions, or refuse the proposal but seldom there are > suggestions to reach a consensus. > > But no one collects the requirements for this topic in a structured manner! > > I think, establishing a (small) working group is the right thing to do. And > the first job of this WG is to collect all data (via Mailing List, Wiki, > specific forums, ...). Then everyone has the chance, to add his requirement > (eg country specific, mapper or developer of editor, cyclist or hiker, > ...). > > Out of this, the group can work out a proposal which considers all users. > Specific questions could be discussed with people not in the WG who > contributed to the requirements. > This proposal should go to the proposal page and be voted on. All people > having contributed to the requirement should be informed of the ongoing > vote to have the possibility to discuss and comment in the unlikely > situation of a not working proposal. > The result should go into the wiki, and also in the editors (since i know > many osm mappers who don't participate in the mailing list and don't want > to search the whole wiki for information and just do it like they think...) > > For our path/footway discussion which started this: > The WG has to collect information: > * find influencing factors (laws, routing, local rules, ...) > * laws for accessabbility in the different states and countries (implicit > and explicit) > * which signs are used in reality (in all countries) > * what's the meaning of the signs > * what should be displayed on the map > * affected tags > * ... > * small survey how the tags are actually used and rendered > * structure this information > The WG could work out a proposal. I'm convinced, there is a solution to our > discussion but we won't find it exchanging hundreds of mails in the Mailing > List. > > Yours Kai > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Chance" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:49 PM > Subject: [english 95%] [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features > > > Dear all, > > > > If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing, > > it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails, > > disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We > > develop, over years, one set of tags like > > highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the > > schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a > > structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus. > > > > For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine. > > Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side > > by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction. > > > > Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about > > existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the > > whole thing is falling apart. > > > > So... > > > > I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process: > > > > - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice > > - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the > > proposal to small working groups > > - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete > > proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. > > - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote > > - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering > > stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, > > auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals > > > > So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work > > out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at > > SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that > > probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in > > line with the new schema would kick off. > > > > Does this sound workable? > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
