[OSM-talk] Map features discussion & voting
tom at acrewoods.net
Mon Jun 11 10:59:53 BST 2007
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:11:03 +0100, "Andy Robinson" <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote:
>>I'd like to see thing tied tighter to what is going on in the real
>>world (i.e. in the db). So I'd like to see proposed features already
>>in use by a few different people before they can be "approved". Only
>>stuff that goes directly against or otherwise changes established
>>features should be discussed before implementing.
>>In fact, I don't see any point for voting for additional tags if it's
>>just e.g adding another type of amenity. It's worth checking that it's
>>not already in use and making others aware of it, but there's nothing
>>stopping you just getting on with it. It's only for e.g. tagging
>>rivers entirely differently that warrants discussion and a minimum
> +1 for this approach. It was never envisaged that we would vote and
> approve each and every tag (or any tag for that matter) but it would be easy to
> select the tags being used to decide which we want to adopt for "standard"
> applications such as the rendering. We can achieve that with reference to
> the keys and values already in use in the planet file.
> If users like a tag and think it fits they will simply go ahead and use
> it. All the proposed tags and the discussion about them as good as it
> indicates the way people are thinking for new tags, but I don't believe any voting
> process is needed beyond that.
There are two problems with the way it works at the moment:
1. For those "uncontroversial" tags there isn't enough discussion to know if what you say really is the case, and not everyone will find out so they'll keep using an old value. The cash machine / ATM discussion was really good but pretty rare, and I'm sure people still mark them as cash machines rather than ATMs.
2. There are plenty of instances of controversial choices, like stream and green_space, that need proper discussion.
I'm really more concerned by the lack of discussion than any particular voting mechanism. My suggestion of a minimum number of votes was really a way to force a certain number of people to at least read and approve a proposal!
More information about the talk