[Tagging] remove “rendering” from proposal template

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Sat Apr 24 17:28:22 UTC 2021


On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 10:15 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
It all seems to me that the simplest way of dealing with objections to
> a "Rendering" section in the template is to change the name to
> "Suggested Rendering."  The more complicated way would be to
> introduce an "Effects on Data Consumers" section with a "Suggested
> Rendering" subsection.
>

The information that I think we actually care about is:

* Does this proposal change the meaning of or deprecate existing tagging
which is currently supported by data consumers/renderers?
* If yes, what will the impact be on those data consumers/renderers, and
what is the proposed plan for transition, such dual-tagging, attrition,
future mechanical edits, etc?

What we are really assessing in these cases is whether the cost (impact to
data consumers) is worth the gain in approving the tagging change.

For truly brand new tags, if a proposal author wants to do an art project
to show how they think it should render in Carto because they think it
makes the proposal more compelling, I guess that's fine, but having it as
an explicit section makes new proposers think it's expected.  It also risks
people voting against the proposal because they don't like the rendering
suggestion, or don't think it should render in the default map at all,
which is an independent question from how to tag things.  It also
discourages people that are not artistically inclined from writing
proposals if they feel that a sample rendering is expected.

I would rather see proposals clearly and squarely focus on the modeling and
data structures, with strong, compelling examples, versus back-door Carto
rendering requests.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210424/e1305630/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list