[OSM-talk] redundant proposal? - man_made=fenced_compounds

[Michael Collinson]

The current system has really relied on the original proposer to come 
back and keep their proposal moving along ... but that doesn't always 
happen.  Robin, Ulfl (thanks guys) and to much lesser extent myself 
have been working to hustle things a long a bit more and do the page 
maintenance required and the backlog is going down.

The waterway=riverbank page got a good clean-up in October but hasn't 
moved since.  It was actually a bad example by me of a tag in the 
"Works in Progress/Pending" hospital as it is in fact listed twice on 
the page, I've just remedied that.

Mike
Stockholm

At 04:09 PM 1/4/2008, Chris Hill wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>Is there a reason why the waterway=riverbank has not gone through 
>voting?  With the multipolygon relation for islands it seems to work well.
>cheers,
>Chris
>
>----- Original Message ----
> > From: Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz>
> > To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Sent: Friday, 4 January, 2008 8:25:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] redundant proposal? - man_made=fenced_compounds
> >
> > At 01:22 AM 1/4/2008, Robin Paulson wrote:
> > >in my quest to tidy the proposals page on the wiki, some proposals
> > >have come up which appear to be redundant
> > >
> > >is there an acknowledged way of removing them, without going through
> > >the whole comments/opinions/voting process?
> > >
> > >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Fenced_compounds
> > >
> > >is a good example
> > >
> > >thanks
> >
> > Ye, it would certainly be good to be more aggressive in cleaning up
> > up the Proposals page, it is hard to casually browse for
> > "live"
> >
>  proposals.
> >
> > Currently, the only mechanism is to move proposals into the "Needs
> > cleanup/modification" and "Works in Progress/Pending" sections at the
> > bottom - which are roughly equivalent to the place sick proposals go
> > to
> >
>  die.
> >
> > I propose:
> >
> > 1) Mark redundant proposals with "This proposal appears to be
> > redundant or duplicated.  Unless there are any objections it will be
> > removed on or after dd-mm-yyyy" and leave it there until you or
> > someone else is next doing a clean-up round.
> >
> > 2) More generally, any proposal that has been there for more than a
> > year (see the pages "history" tab) be removed.  Looking at a few
> > other proposals, this may be a little too aggressive as the
> > "riverbank"
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Large_rivers
> > proposal would go (or perhaps is should?).   An alternative would be
> > to remove any proposal that has been there a year and had no
> > substantive activity for 6 months.
> >
> > Here the dates for your example:
> >
> > Created - 29 August 2006
> > Last substantive comment - Dec 2006
> > Last comment of any kind - Apr 2007
> >
> > Mike
> > Stockholm
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________
>Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com