[Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 25 15:03:52 UTC 2013

2013/11/24 Manuel Hohmann <mhohmann at physnet.uni-hamburg.de>

> voting for the proposed man_made=lamp has been finished. The result
> and further proceeding can be found here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lamp#Results
> To summarize the results:
> In the two voting periods that this proposal has run through the
> following results have been obtained:
> - - First voting period: 6 times yes.
> - - Second voting period: 18 times yes, 18 times no, 1 partial approve.

i.e. the proposal has been rejected.

> The reasons for opposing the proposal can be summarized as follows:
> - - Replacement / deprecation of the widely used highway=street_lamp.
> - - Introduction of new tags for a more complicated tagging.
> - - Introduction of tags which are not differentiated between light
> fixture, lamp and light.

the question for the last point was not, whether this should all be tagged
with different tags, but that you apparently want to map light fixtures and
have chosen the wrong word for it (lamp).

> The reasons for approving the proposal can be summarized as follows:
> - - Deprecation of highway=street_lamp, since a lamp ultimately is not a
> highway or a part thereof.

-1, not all lights are part of highways, but there are lights on highways
and they can well be seen as part of the highway (it depends on your
interpretation, but IMHO there are more arguments to see them as part of
the road than not, see for instance the tag lit=yes. Those lights wouldn't
be there if there was no highway). I am also not sure if it is a problem to
have more than one tag for a kind of light, e.g. one for street lights and
one or more for other kind of lights.
Deprecating a highly used tag is almost never working.

> - - Introduction of new tags that allow a more detailed mapping of lamps.
> - - Introduction of new tags for light sources which are not street lamps.

maybe you should focus on these without trying to deprecate other tags.
There is no need to.

> - - Those who voted against the proposal need to agree on how to change
> it such that it will become more acceptable.

they could (and here I am), but they do not "need to". It is up to who
wants change to convince the rest, not the other way round.

- - Use the proposed features as they are.

you can always do that, but your proceeding doesn't look very logical then:
usually you start a proposal and voting in order to find problems with the
suggested tags, and if a proposal voting doesn't show a good majority it
usually indicates that it was either poorly drafted or has some other
serious problems e.g. with the proposed tags. In this case I wouldn't
continue using these tags as if nothing happened.


> it is likely to happen anyway, since the result has shown that there
> is a clear interest in detailed lamp mapping from parts of the
> community.

lamp mapping or lights mapping?

> The proposed tagging will evolve further through practical
> tag usage.

I don't understand this, could you explain?

> For this reason the status has for now been reset to "proposed", until
> there is further progress.

IMHO you should start a new proposal and set the current one to "rejected",
because that's what it is. Two times actually.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131125/37dac885/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list