[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations

[David Marchal]

Dear mappers,

I hereby suspend the vote, as it is clear that consensus will not be reached on the proposal in its current state.

The main issues that currently prevent reaching a consensus are, according to the vote comments, the following:

- the proposal statement about using databases to map forestry area boundaries, which is considered by some allowing unverifiable mapping. It is a huge issue for some mappers, although others pointed out that verifiability is, particularly in so-called third world, very subjective. The proposal will be modified towards stronger verifiability, as this barrier is currently strong enough to prevent, by itself, consensus on the proposal (though this will not prevent users, in case of approval, to adapt the verifiability criteria to the reality of their area);
- the proposal does not enoughly state how would the transition to the new scheme be done. I kept that out of the proposal, because I felt it was irrelevant, but it seems that this is necessary out of pedagogy. Given the complexity of the proposal and the wide impact it will have if approved, understanding it upon first reading is essential to allow voters who did not participate in preliminary debates to better understand what it is about, without having to dwelve in all the details; I'll then include some sort of transition digest, especially a table which will explain how to update the tagging in different situations, and a detailed argumentation of the design choices made in the proposal (why boundary=* and not landuse=*? why deprecating landuse=forest? why not a landuse=forestry?…);
- some voters are attached to landcover=trees. I was not able to understand this attachement during preliminary debates: I presented arguments to some such mappers during the preliminary debates to spark debate about it, but did not receive a counterargumentation I could understand. Still, there are mappers that opposed the proposal solely because of this deprecation, so I assume I must make more efforts to try to understand these mappers and determinate if this attachment to landcover=trees is a matter of reflection (in which case, shoud the proposed changes be modified or should the proposal simply explain clearer the deprecation)?, or a mere not-argumentable personal opinion ("I feel it better, period.").

There was another problem: as some of you pointed out, I prematurately launched the vote while there was still an ongoing debate. The reason is simple, and very personal: I have much difficulty to understand the opinion of others. I understand they can have one, and why, of course, but really understanding it and taking it into account to reach compromise is something very difficult and time-consuming on me. The debate this proposal sparked implied several more or less argumented reviews, objections and counterargumentations per day, and that for some weeks. I just can't cope with such a situation: overwhelmed by the amount of information I had to process several hours a day, I simply panicked and launched the vote to just get rid of the mess and return to my life. Of course, that was not a good way to manage the situation, but, at that point, I just wanted an escape route to get peace.

So, I will rework the proposal, but will do it in a way that will prevent such overwhelming and let me time to process objections. So I will privately, and at a slower pace, contact some of you, especially those who opposed the proposal, to peacefully discuss the proposal, try to understand their point of view, and to either see how to explain the proposal to make it easier to understand, or how to modify it to fit needs I still can't see. That, I'll do privately for now, to prevent such overwhelming (for me) public debate; public debate will take place, of course, but at a later stage.

Obviously, I will need the help of the voters who opposed the proposal, and I will directly (i.e. not through the ML) contact some of them. Dear opponents, I may be able to alter the proposal to meet your views, but only if I can understand your opinion and your arguments. I will not be able to do that if you don't answer me in a way that allows me to understand why the proposal, according to you, must be amended. Of course, I cannot guarantee I will merge all your proposals in the main one, especially if your opposition is a matter of personal preference; still, I owe you to give you the possibility to change my mind and the proposal.

Please, dear mappers, help me to build consensus; for that, we need arguments, not assertions. Remember that I'm trying to correct something that has been more or less problematic and confusing from virtually all OSM existence. This is so big. I may have to change my mind and the proposal, but you may also need to adapt the way you think this issue if we want to collectively solve it. I've been on the verge of throwing away this whole proposal to simply retreive peace, but some mappers asked me to stay, as they felt the issue was too important to simply give up now. That's what I will try, but I need your help for that: there is no place for petty opinions and narrow-mindedness if we are to solve this.

Thanks for reading.

Regards.

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Le mardi, 16. février 2021 07:13, David Marchal <penegal.fr at protonmail.com> a écrit :

> Voting has started for boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations
>
> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210218/193fb71a/attachment.htm>