[Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well !

I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voting
altogether. Voting does focus the group and as it has a formal finish
date, might (just might) encourage closure.

But overall, well said !

Incidentally, worth providing a link to proposals when you mention them.
I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, perhaps because there
are so many abandoned ones.

David

> 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.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging