[Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

Hakuch hakuch at posteo.de
Wed Feb 24 22:57:50 UTC 2016


On 24.02.2016 22:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> There was not enough consensus to justify accepting and enacting the
> proposal. Looking just at the vote counts but ignoring the discussions
> around it makes little sense.

the discussions are important, and they should go on to find a uniform
tagging scheme. But voting is a way to find a solution. That doesnt
mean, that the disussion about a topic is ignored. Everyone was able to
take part in the voting, as in the discussion

> The opinions were varied, but there was clear support in keeping the
> name_N documentation, both for the basic principle of documenting
> current practices, and because some contributors believe it is a
> better way of tagging multiple-value fields. If anything, name_1 needs
> to be kept because it is sometimes technically needed, even if it
> isn't the prefered option. On top of that, this isn't an "either-or"
> case where if we choose one scheme we need to deprecate the others.

I really do not want to go again in this discussion, when you start this
with just editing the wiki pages without asking on the list. But I also
would like to know what means "technically needed"

> I've reverted the deletion.

that was against the decision of the proposal where everyone was able to
take part. At least, you should have pointed out your decision before
you did the changes.

>, which makes as little sense as deleting
> the Semicolon page would. 

you can start a proposal if you want to delete the page

> To make things a bit more constructive, I've
> also created a page documenting MV tagging in general (trying to
> gather all the points mentioned during last month's threads, sticking
> to current practices, not advocating for one scheme over another) and
> made other tweaks to the name pages. Feel free to discuss here or on
> the wiki.

As I told you in the message, I like the idea to have a special MV Page.
But you shouldn't advise something there that has been discouraged by
the proposal (you even removed the link to the proposal on the name
page!) And the whole MV thing is still in discussion, you should inform
about this on the page and call in the people to join the discussion
with their ideas.

> As an aside, using a wiki proposal just to decide what should go in
> the wiki, rather than what should go in the db, is a strange thing. 

the wiki is the entrance to the database, better it should be. Mappers
who care for consistency check the wiki before they start just tagging
as they want to (and what looks nice on an arbitrary map).
And by the way, I really would like to have a cool proposal and voting
plattform to motivate more people to take part in votings and discussion.

> By
> the time you reduced the scope of your proposal from deprecating
> name_N to merely un-documenting it, when it became clear (?) that
> name_N had an important role to play, the proposal was IMHO dead on
> arrival. 

I dont understand this. Do you mean the problem of the title "remove
suffixed tags" ? Just to mention here again, the title was bad, yes. But
I never changed the content of the proposal. Just people who didn't read
carefully enough the content where misleaded by the title.


-- 
BITTE BESORG DIR EINE NEUE EMAILADRESSE!

Wenn du mit mir über eine Gmail Adresse schreibst, landet alles was wir
kommunizieren bei Google und wird dort gespeichert, analysiert,
bewertet, verwendet.
Wenn dir das egal ist ok, deine Sache. Aber ich will da nicht mit
reingezogen werden.
Also schon aus Respekt deinen Kommunikationspartner-innen gegenüber, hol
dir bitte eine Adresse von Posteo.de, Mailbox.org oder Riseup.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x3CBE432B.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160224/6e7db03e/attachment-0001.key>


More information about the Tagging mailing list