[OSM-talk] [english 95%] A process for rethinking map features

[Tom Chance]

On Saturday 15 Aug 2009 13:09:41 Mike Harris wrote:
> Kai - this makes very good sense. But how do we set up a working group? And
> would it - and its findings/recommendations - be acceptable to the majority
> of the OSM community?

I also think Kai's proposal makes a lot of sense.

I suspect the best way to approach this would be for a group of people to just 
give it a go - start a group in the next couple of weeks on a particular 
topic, and try the process out.

Probably sensible to start with something more manageable than path/highway. 
Maybe the forest/wood debate.

The one missing part to work out is how we respond to the proposal. The best 
thing I can imagine is if we could set-up a poll that uses our OSM.org logins 
and we notify as many users as possible through every channel available. We 
could set the bar at something like >1000 votes and a 66% majority needed.

Regards,
Tom



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kai at VieleVisels [mailto:kai at vielevisels.de]
> Sent: 15 August 2009 11:13
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [english 95%] A process for rethinking map features
>
> Hi,
> what's our present way: Someone makes a proposal, some other people make
> their own suggestions, or refuse the proposal but seldom there are
> suggestions to reach a consensus.
>
> But no one collects the requirements for this topic in a structured manner!
>
> I think, establishing a (small) working group is the right thing to do. And
> the first job of this WG is to collect all data (via Mailing List, Wiki,
> specific forums, ...). Then everyone has the chance, to add his requirement
> (eg country specific, mapper or developer of editor, cyclist or hiker,
> ...).
>
> Out of this, the group can work out a proposal which considers all users.
> Specific questions could be discussed with people not in the WG who
> contributed to the requirements.
> This proposal should go to the proposal page and be voted on. All people
> having contributed to the requirement should be informed of the ongoing
> vote to have the possibility to discuss and comment in the unlikely
> situation of a not working proposal.
> The result should go into the wiki, and also in the editors (since i know
> many osm mappers who don't participate in the mailing list and don't want
> to search the whole wiki for information and just do it like they think...)
>
> For our path/footway discussion which started this:
> The WG has to collect information:
> * find influencing factors (laws, routing, local rules, ...)
> * laws for accessabbility in the different states and countries (implicit
> and explicit)
> * which signs are used in reality (in all countries)
> * what's the meaning of the signs
> * what should be displayed on the map
> * affected tags
> * ...
> * small survey how the tags are actually used and rendered
> * structure this information
> The WG could work out a proposal. I'm convinced, there is a solution to our
> discussion but we won't find it exchanging hundreds of mails in the Mailing
> List.
>
> Yours Kai
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Chance" <tom at acrewoods.net>
> To: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:49 PM
> Subject: [english 95%] [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk