[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant Extensions)

Michael Reichert osm-ml at michreichert.de
Mon Oct 16 18:12:36 UTC 2017


Hi Alberto,

Am 16.10.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Viking:
> Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change "no" to "yes" if we redefine gallons.
> Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved?

A quote from the wiki (page Proposal_process#Approved):
> A rule of thumb for "enough support" is 8 unanimous approval votes or at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). All suggestions should be taken into account before a proposal is approved or rejected.

I think that this is very clear.

I myself was surprised a few days ago that a proposal needs a 3/4
majority, too.

> Anyway some issues can be easily solved:
> 
> fire_hydrant:class=* can become fire_hydrant:awwa_class=*
> gpm can become usgal/min
> fire_hydrant=* can remain fire_hydrant:type=*
> 
> Instead for:
> 
> diameter=*
> pressure=*
> location=*
> 
> We must first of all decide if go on or not.
> In the affirmative case, we must document very well the reasons why we want to use them, and we must expect a transition period in which existing tags remain and new tags are used alongside them.
> 
> For all other  points that haven't been contested, I consider them approved and I would start to add them to fire_hydrant page.

I think that either a whole proposal is approved or not. You cannot
declare parts of the proposal as approved because the voting was on the
whole, not on each part independently. How would you count the votes
against the proposal if the voter did not write a comment (comments are
not required).

> We can't block this proposal any more. In a way or in another we need the new tags as soon as possible.

I myself am not against the proposal and agree with parts of the
proposal but you should still write multiple new ones. Split your
proposal into two or more parts which can exist independent from the
other parts. It is a burden but just adding tags from a large, failed
proposal to feature pages has some similarities with the
motorcycle_friendly case we discussed on this mailing list a few days ago.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171016/2e5f893a/attachment.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list