[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Temperature=

[Warin]

On 27/02/2015 9:03 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     The 'adjustable' value has been criticised as having no limits ...
>     the suggestion is to use a sub tag say for example
>     adjustable:range=cold to hot. That would need another proposal.
>
>
> Pull it all into one coherent proposal, then, for best results.
>

Then you have to vote once for /against many things .... the more things 
the more possibilities of getting one thing objected to by one person, 
another  thing by another person and so on.. eventually even the 
proposer would vote against it!

The way I see around that is NOT to discuss and vote on everything at 
once .. but one thing at a time. I've fallen fowl of this on this 
temperature key. I will not do that again.

If you want to "pull it all into one coherent proposal" why then is the 
proposal amenity=sanitary dump// station not includeing the sub keys to 
identify use for canisters, chemical toilets and raw effluent? As I see 
it those can come later.

So ...  my next proposal will be more restrictive and I will exclude the 
values of the key .. that way people will vote on the key alone ... 
leading to a better chance of reach a consensus and 'passing' the voting 
process. The values of the key can then be disscused and voted on 
individually. Thus the waste_collection key ... talk on including 
recycling in that now may leed to loosing the key. Talk of recyling 
later may lead to loosing the recycling section .. but any other values 
would remian. Thus we get the real majority result, in as short a period 
as possible rather than rejection due to a minority objection to one 
thing, another minority objection to something else ... without voting 
on one item at a time that can happen.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150227/f07ee91f/attachment-0001.html>