[Tagging] Wiki vote threshold
matkoniecz at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 15:13:56 UTC 2015
"It isn't good either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer
it for voting later on."
Why not? In one case I had an idea for tag that turned out to be poor one.
Testing it by using
saved producing proposal that maybe would seem reasonable but would have
2015-03-03 14:35 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum <jan.vanbekkum at gmail.com>:
> 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.
>> 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
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging