[Tagging] Follow-Up Proposal - voting ended - (Tramtrack, on highway)

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Me too!

Mark


> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:52:51 +0100
> From: Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Follow-Up Proposal - voting ended - (Tramtrack
> 	on	highway)
>
> I look forward to a new vote and will vote in favour of what you're
> proposing now.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM Nikulainen, Jukka K <
> jukka.nikulainen at helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>> Hello Paul, and thank you for your input!
>>
>> You are indeed correct that my follow-up proposal would very radically cut
>> corners and be, to say the least, unorthodox. I'm certainly sorry if it
>> offended the sensibilities of anyone.
>>
>> I can see now that it could be construed as malicious and you are
>> certainly right that implementing a new vote on a new proposal would not be
>> an excessive amount of work.
>>
>> Indeed, doing a new proposal and a new vote seems the right thing to do,
>> and I'll get to it soon!
>>
>> Please let me explain the rationale my odd follow-up proposal, as a few
>> lines in your response did catch my eye:
>>
>>> 1) Your analysis is correct. The new proposal would meet with universal
>> acclaim and pass unanimously.
>>
>> I don't quite understand how you could possibly have reached the
>> conclusion that I would expect "universal acclaim" or unanimity, from
>> anything that I've written in the follow-up. It seems to me painstakingly
>> obvious that neither would ensue, judging only from the opposing votes and
>> critical comments on the original proposal.
>>
>> Furthermore, responding to your second point, I was not aware that
>> "universal acclaim" was required for a proposal to pass as you suggest. At
>> least the proposal process wiki page seems to say otherwise. But of course
>> I could just be moronically illiterate, in which case: mea maxima culpa!
>>
>> I would also argue that my follow-up proposal isn't based on blitheness.
>> Rather it is based on the sixteen approving votes on the original proposal
>> and the quite acute and perceptive critical comments they contained and
>> conveyed. Nor is expediency alone my motivation (though I must admit, it is
>> a consideration too).
>>
>> I, rather, worry whether enough people will be interested to vote again on
>> a similar proposal only with changed tag-values. Many of the interesting
>> critical comments and interested people in fact came forth only after
>> voting had started and the proposal could no longer be changed. It would be
>> a shame if the idea (which, again, _did_ garner support on the first round)
>> would be lost in the absence of interest on a second proposal and vote. But
>> maybe I just worry too much.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jukka Nikulainen (Tolstoi21)
>>