Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Gustav Foseid wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1 care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently the proposal isn't so bad, is it? Why didn't all those people who apparently hate path vote against it? If you look at the voting results, you will see that it was rather disputed from the start: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path#Voting The arguments against come down to two things: It's complex (false) I don't see a need for a generic path (OK, but others do) Not so disputed after all. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Liz wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Alex Mauer wrote: Not sure how you think path was forced though. It had 34 votes, 22 for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the standard procedure. while this was the sort of number of votes that appear on the wiki, for a project with tens of thousands of contributors, this doesn't make a mandate (not even for the most determined politician) OK, but how does that mean it was forced? No one was (or is) held at gunpoint and ordered to use highway=path. We followed the standard, documented procedure for adding a tag to the wiki. We did nothing nefarious to stuff the votes (at least I didn't, and I am not aware of any sock-puppets or anything like that) I don't even know where the idea of needing a mandate[1] comes in. No one's being elected to represent someone else. There are no policies that some hypothetical person who would have been elected could have made public. And no goverment(!?) is trying to implement a policy here. So, uh... what? -Alex Mauer hawke 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
John Smith wrote: Forced is probably the wrong word, gamed the system is what I would have said. The system was used exactly as it was intended. It's not my fault if few people choose to participate. If there is over 100,000 accounts and at least 1% of them actively map and have actively mapped for over 1 year 30 or 40 votes compared to a possible 1000 participants isn't a very indicative outcome. We only reached 100,000 accounts this year. When the final vote was registered on highway=path (May 2008) we were at 35000 users. Not all of those who map also use the wiki regularly. Your possible 1000 participants is a very high estimate, I would say. Regardless... The current system is flawed when it comes to making decisions on complex issues, this is why democracies aren't democracies, nothing would ever be decided if everyone had a vote on everything. Instead we have republics where a few are elected or nominated to make the decisions. No arguments with this, but would would you have had us do? I'm pretty sure there'd be even more screaming if we'd just unilaterally changed the wiki. Do nothing? Despite some peoples' objections, it certainly does fill a need. If you have a proposal for a better system (and I'm pretty sure that doesn't include any kind of wiki masters who get to decide what's useful and what's not), I'm sure we'd be happy to hear it. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Steve Hill wrote: It seems to me that instead of referring to a crossing by name, we should just list its properties. e.g. something like: highway=crossing crossing=uncontrolled|traffic_signals island=yes|no bicycle=yes|no foot=yes|no horse=yes|no +1. This is almost exactly what the over-ridden proposal says -- Bad - You get pulled over for doing 90 in a school zone and you're drunk off your ass again at three in the afternoon. Worse - The cop is drunk too, and he's a mean drunk. FUCK! - A mean drunk that's actually a swarm of semi-sentient flesh-eating beetles. OpenPGP key id: 51192FF2 @ subkeys.pgp.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering highways in the USA and elsewhere
Jeffrey Martin wrote: I think free tagging is great, but we should not allow multiple definitions for each tag. A tag should not indicate both it's legal status and it's structure, although one might imply the other under certain circumstances. Well, that's an unfortunate fact of the 'highway' tag. It was written to indicate both legal status and physical structure. -Alex Mauer hawke -- Bad - You get pulled over for doing 90 in a school zone and you're drunk off your ass again at three in the afternoon. Worse - The cop is drunk too, and he's a mean drunk. FUCK! - A mean drunk that's actually a swarm of semi-sentient flesh-eating beetles. OpenPGP key id: 51192FF2 @ subkeys.pgp.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already existed in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal. So let us break down the different suggestions and go on vor vote now? As far as I can tell, there are two suggestions: 1.) adding railway=funicular and rag=yes for non funicular incline railways 2.) adding railway=incline and an additional tags for types of incline railways (funicular,rag, ...) I think it is important to be able to mark a railway as an incline railway of some sort, without having to specify what drive mechanism it uses. If that can fit into the first suggestion, I'm all for it. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
