[Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbekkum at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 13:35:46 UTC 2015

At this moment I have three proposals the comment stage (campsite
classification, vehicle storage, camping electricity supply) with a very
simple purpose: to fill holes in the mapping possibilities for overlanders
(people travelling for a long time with their own transport often through
developing countries).

Because I was new to the voting process I haven't sent any voting
invitation yet. I first wanted to see how the process works.

As stated earlier in this trail the discussion prior to the voting is more
important than the voting itself. In my case the initial discussion was
generally very good. Some outcomes: (1) tags become useful for a much wider
audience by a slightly different definition, (2) tags need to be adapted to
avoid confusion with an already existing tag with a different meaning, (3)
English may be improved (important for me as a not native speaker), (4) a
proposed new subtag is not needed because a tag covering the issue already
exists. However the discussion also developed into questioning tagging
decisions taken long ago that go far beyond the scope of my proposal (for
example shop vs. amenity) and may result in people rejecting a targeted
proposal because they want to make a very general point.

It was also interesting to see that the number of people participating in
the discussion is very small compared to the number of people mapping.
Apparently tag definition isn't considered important by many.

To be honest in the case of the proposal for the reception_desk I got the
impression that one voter had collected a lobby of people not necessarily
interested in the topic: copy/paste of comments, no prior participation in
the discussion. This behaviour wouldn't help the voting process.

At the current level of maturity of OSM new tags often start within a
special interest group that may have its own data extraction or rendering
tools using tags that interest them independent of their status. Later on
the tags may be used by more people and show up in general rendering tools

I don't think it is good to leave tags in a "floating state" for a long
time as it will prevent people from starting to use them. It isn't good
either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer it for voting
later on. One wants to have as much clarity as possible before using a tag.

I would strongly prefer to have a clear definition under what condition a
proposal passes. For example what are *significant *negative comments?

In summary I doubt if the proposed changes will bring an improvement, but I
wonder if we need voting at all, or only the preceding discussion.


Jan van Bekkum

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:47 AM Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss
>> a few important steps.
> +1
> The process works well then the proposal itself is refined and improved
> through the process.  The vote then becomes almost irrelevant.
> In general the main weakness I see is lack of real use.  Until real
> mappers start mapping real things, the true tagging does not emerge.
> Perhaps we could:
> Make "trial tagging" for a time, then discuss, then retag everything to
> the final scheme.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150303/ffab6f24/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list