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

[Mike Harris]

Hi

I agree with almost of all of what Lambert says. I would think that the
actual membership of any working group would need to include two broad
classes of people: (a) those with a long-term knowledge of OSM, how it works
and how the whole nexus of software/mapping/rendering/data_use hangs
together; (b) those with some specialist knowledge of the particular topic -
i.e. mostly different people for wood/forest/... to those for
cemetery/graveyard/burial_ground/crematorium/human_waste_disposal_site or
path/track/footway ....

It goes without saying (almost) that there has to be some sort of
'geopolitical'/linguistic balance if the group is to take a 'world view'.

Who gets to decide who is in? Tough one ... But maybe a very crude stab at
an initial model would be (only once the job is spec'd - i.e. what is the
job, what work product is expected, what are the criteria for completion and
success): Step 1: canvas widely within the OSM community for interested
volunteers and nominations (nominations only with the permission of the
person nominated); Step 2: publish the list widely (with perhaps name= ,
interest= , special knowledge= , geographical location= , language(s)= and
give an opportunity for objections (if any) and further nominations; Step 3:
create a final list; Step 4: random selection of subsets of names from the
list to get the right sort of total number (whatever that might be!) - i.e.
subset of names to represent geography; a subset of names to represent
language; a subset of names to represent skills needed in the group; Step 5:
add subsets to form group. OK - I am not going to defend this - treat it as
a thought process starter!

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Lambert Carsten [mailto:lhc.osm at solcon.nl] 
Sent: 16 August 2009 08:41
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [english 95%] A process for rethinking map features

Hi,

Implementing the outcome of what the working group comes up with is not an
issue IMO. We have the presets in the editors and the errors in keepright. 
Together those are way more powerful than any discussion here or even the
mapfeatures page.. My guess is that the developers those projects will be
very happy with clear guidance on the 'rules'.

The main task of the working group would be to search through mailing
list(s), discussion pages etc. and decide what the outcome is. The way I see
it all the pieces are there it is just unclear as to what the
outcome/conclusion is.
So the goal would be to collect all the points of view, weigh them and
present their conclusion.

The wiki page could have an extra tab where the outcome of the working group
presents their result. If unhappy comments turn up on the mailing list they
could decide to go a second round. When they have finished a subject the
mapfeature would be updated. Also they would inform the various developers
groups (editors, keepright, stylesheets) of the status quo, and hopefully
there is a contact for the translated mapfeatures pages.

The working group would decide which feature to tackle, but there could also
be a 'wishlist' where requests could be put up and be voted on to get an
order of priority helping them which feature to tackle next.

I am not a big fan of voting. Sometimes it is necessary to cut a long
discussion short where one needs to 'force' an agreement. So voting the way
it is now where those involved in the discussion do the voting IMO doesn't
need to change.

The hard part as I see it is who gets to decide who is in the working group.

Is it a fixed group where we vote who gets in? Maybe ad hoc groups where
someone announces on this mailing list they want to tackle a feature and
invites others to join? When is a group a group? The working group will need
some kind of authority to work, otherwise they will just be ignored and
ineffective.

Lambert Carsten


On Sunday 16 August 2009 01:51:43 James Livingston wrote:
> On 16/08/2009, at 2:20 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
> > Probably sensible to start with something more manageable than path/ 
> > highway.
> > Maybe the forest/wood debate.
>
> Sounds good to me. The important thing is that the group has their 
> goals set out explicitly, so they know exactly what they should be 
> doing, and they know when they're finished.
>
> To me, this means that we need to collect a complete list of all the 
> tree/wood/forest-related things that people may want to add to OSM 
> (even if they already have tagging solutions), with good descriptions, 
> if possible photos and what implications people think they have. The 
> WG could then sit down and figure out which of them are actually the 
> same, and then find a good tagging scheme.
>
>
> I think the "complete list of what we want to tag" is something we're 
> missing in the current arguments. How are we supposed to know if what 
> people are talking about are actually the same thing? Especially since 
> language is an issue, either not having English as a first language, 
> or not having the same English (e.g. British vs Australia vs American).
>
> > 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.
>
> I think that if the WG comes up with a solution after taking into 
> account, then it would likely be acceptable to most people. If not, 
> then it probably didn't represent a crosssection of the community, or 
> people didn't add their items to the list of things to tag.
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk