[OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight

[Sven Grüner]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> There may be a misunderstanding on my part. I always thought that those
> who vote, by using un-qualified terms like "approved" and "not
> approved", somehow feel that their decisions have an authority that in
> the end applies to everone's mapping work, including mine. If that's not
> really what they want, but instead they just want to provide guidance to
> those who can't be bothered, then I guess that's ok with me. But we
> should really drop big words like "approved" then.

I agree with you that some terms in this process might not be optimal,
same applies to depricated. But as a non-native speaker I never thought
about that and just took these words for what they mean in this context.

On the other hand I still see that the word approve fits in here quiet
well. The question is what, how and why someone approves something. In
our context I (when voting) approve by the authority of my own opinion
that the tagging in question is making sense. That's all to it.

I consider it obvious that I'm casting my vote NOT on behalf of OSMF or
some other superhuman instance somewhere out there but just on the
authority any human has from it's birth on, his own opinion.
I also consider it obvious that nobody has any authourity or even power
about which tags a mapper may enter, regardless of what he writes in our
wiki or elsewhere.

And after a quick glance at http://dict.leo.org/?search=approve I don't
even think 'approve' is such a strong word at all. But when you're more
comfortable with 'agree' we should consider that.

regards, Sven