[OSM-talk] Instead of voting
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Oct 10 15:08:46 BST 2009
2009/10/9 Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>:
> Doctau created the following page, and various other people have
> contributed to it.
This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff
including the casted votes of the past. I personally consider this
harmful, as it deletes part of our project history: it is important to
see, why people voted against a specific proposal, or why they voted
in favour. These comments often are aside the votes. Then there lies a
certain information in the amount of people who voted for or against a
proposal, and how many of them voted for which. For these reasons I'd
suggest regardless the outcome of the voting upon this proposal to at
least not delete the old votes where voting is already completed.
> 1) Just map.
> 2) Use existing keys if you can. When you use a key, check to see if
> there's an existing value that matches what you are mapping. To go
> looking, put your key into the following URL where it says "shop":
as tags and subtags get more specific, it is important which tag is
meant to mean what. Without a definition this will not be possible,
not even in the UK but definitely not in the whole world with most
people not being English natives.
> 3) Use existing tags if you can. When you use a tag (key=value),
> check to see if an existing tag is already documented. Don't use it
> in a different way if it's already documented. To go looking, change
> this URL where it says "shop=car":
the thing is that not everybody will write a documentation for every
key he uses, and in the end (we're already in some tags at this
stage), there will be many same tags with different intended meanings.
By deleting the voting-process things will get worse.
> 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the
> tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else.
> 5) If you disagree with the definition of the key or value, then
> create a new key or value with a different name, use it in your
> editing, document it in the wiki, AND (this is important) put a link
> to it in the definition that you disagree with.
this would mean that footway/cycleway/path was just the beginning ;-)
> 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have
> the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which
> has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one.
> If you find a
> pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the
> wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other.
but won't this "edit" mean to change the definition for all already
present tags in the db? Or do you simply mean to add crossreference?
IMHO for this a parallel system would be better (one that can be read
out automatically from rendering/routing/converting- tools)
More information about the talk