[Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbekkum at gmail.com
Wed Mar 4 05:55:09 UTC 2015


In exchange for a positive vote I am more than happy to share the links :-)

   -
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent
   -
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage
   - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*

Regards,

Jan

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:49 AM David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150304/c0b95c32/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list