[OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features

[Jason Cunningham]

I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of the
OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part. (I wont joint
the osmf while it has links with paypal)

The working group would have to produce a report, and be able to show they
had considered all input. The recommendations should be final, and only
disputed on grounds that agreed procedure hadn't been followed
(for example, where it can be shown that a significant recommendation or
input had not been considered)

A big problem would be setting up the rules for working groups, and this
would probably need a working group. It would be useful to go ahead and try
creating a working group as an experiment, with the results used to see what
the positives and negatives are.

This might be too organised a system for many who like OSM to be anarchic,
but I feel it becomes more necessary with each passing day, and especially
after reading the discussions on paths/footways and woods/forests.

Jason Cunningham
user:Jamicu <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu>


2009/8/10 Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>

>
> Dear all,
>
> If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing,
> it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails,
> disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We
> develop, over years, one set of tags like
> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the
> schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a
> structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus.
>
> For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine.
> Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side
> by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction.
>
> Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about
> existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the
> whole thing is falling apart.
>
> So...
>
> I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process:
>
> - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
> proposal to small working groups
> - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
> proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc.
> - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote
> - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering
> stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking,
> auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals
>
> So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work
> out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at
> SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that
> probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line
> with the new schema would kick off.
>
> Does this sound workable?
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090811/5cd2c390/attachment.html>