Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness, value:Good - summary
Sam Vekemans wrote: > Hi all,1st off I got the page set up better now :) > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:smoothness%3Dgood > > BTW The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness > and the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Smoothness > should actually be merged, as the page ALSO lists the values. > > I organized the page so we have 'discussion FOR' and 'discussion AGAINST' > so that should encourage people to list explanations in the right place. I > think that the talk page should be more for the 'Overall Wiki page > discussion', as technically speaking, the 'discussion:For' and 'against' is > actually part of the map feature proposal process. > ::We submit ideas, talk about it with examples, then refine our ideas until > a satisfied answer is found. > (in contrast, submitting ideas like headings to be changed, and > content omitted/added.. is needed for the talk page) I don't understand: the original key:smoothness proposal was accepted, why would we need a new rfc/approval process for each separate value? If you want to propose a slew of new values to replace the good/bad/horrible series for smoothness=*, why not create a new page for that (or contribute to the existing proposed "usability" key or "surface unification") -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness, value:Good - summary
Hi all,1st off I got the page set up better now :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:smoothness%3Dgood BTW The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness and the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Smoothness should actually be merged, as the page ALSO lists the values. I organized the page so we have 'discussion FOR' and 'discussion AGAINST' so that should encourage people to list explanations in the right place. I think that the talk page should be more for the 'Overall Wiki page discussion', as technically speaking, the 'discussion:For' and 'against' is actually part of the map feature proposal process. ::We submit ideas, talk about it with examples, then refine our ideas until a satisfied answer is found. (in contrast, submitting ideas like headings to be changed, and content omitted/added.. is needed for the talk page) I have added the 'suggested alternate usage' section; As in this case, adding a 3rd or more tag(s), for where ever the tag is used, to become 'objective' and 'descriptive', just as all other tagging standards shows this method to be best. AFAIK, our OSM tagging system is to 'further define' that the feature is from the 1st tag downwards, to differentiate from from other similar features. (with exception, that 'name' goes at the top) as a map reader could look at the context of the surroundings to have a better understanding. X=1, X=1a, X=1b, X=1c, X=1d. ... rather than saying c=d. ... yes, it's still true, BUT unless all 5 are listed it's hard to know what is being described. (IMO) The page is organized to ONLY talk about the 'Key:smoothness, Value:Good' so discussion about the validity of 'smoothness', should be on the 'key:smoothness' page. If you all like the way this page is set up, i can then make similar pages for 'smoothness:excellent' (do describe what an "Excellent Smoothness (way)" IS), then the debate can be focused accordingly. re: Google Definition On a (kind of) side note, I made a note on the template talk page, as we have 'Google Definition' instead of 'Wikipedia' definition, or even Wikitionary? As this would provide a link which would probably be more helpful to users (i think we want to encourage use of Wikipedia :) re: voting system I have also added the not yet written page for 'voting system'. As; I agree with those working to find a better tagging approval system. Voting like Wikipedia (and other sites) with a simple 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down', where over thousands of votes it's clear. ... but it doesn't give a direct answer as to the 'why' its being approved. ..(opinionate? ... "to place an opinion?, where when more than 1 person places an opinion... you have a 'discussion' :-) re: suitability: If no objections, i can also go ahead and create the page of 'suitability' using this same format. re: Map Features page I would vote (opinionate :) ) that do to the fact that EVERYTHING that is listed in the subgroup of 'highway', so when you click on 'highway' you should get to the "key:highway" page, and on this page should list ALL of the Values for highway. .. then for the subclass, only list the subclass, with the link to how that subclass is used. There is no real need to have the same chart listed on duplicate pages. ::reason being, is that IF it gets changed, it's not possible to change it everywhere its listed So, a well worded summery of what the 'highway' tag means... should be good enough to tell the user that after they click on it, they will find everything they need to know about this tag. I hope this summarizes the discussion, :) Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness, value:Good - summary
Hi all,1st off I got the page set up better now :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:smoothness%3Dgood BTW The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness and the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Smoothness should actually be merged, as the page ALSO lists the values. I organized the page so we have 'discussion FOR' and 'discussion AGAINST' so that should encourage people to list explanations in the right place. I think that the talk page should be more for the 'Overall Wiki page discussion', as technically speaking, the 'discussion:For' and 'against' is actually part of the map feature proposal process. ::We submit ideas, talk about it with examples, then refine our ideas until a satisfied answer is found. (in contrast, submitting ideas like headings to be changed, and content omitted/added.. is needed for the talk page) I have added the 'suggested alternate usage' section; As in this case, adding a 3rd or more tag(s), for where ever the tag is used, to become 'objective' and 'descriptive', just as all other tagging standards shows this method to be best. AFAIK, our OSM tagging system is to 'further define' that the feature is from the 1st tag downwards, to differentiate from from other similar features. (with exception, that 'name' goes at the top) as a map reader could look at the context of the surroundings to have a better understanding. X=1, X=1a, X=1b, X=1c, X=1d. ... rather than saying c=d. ... yes, it's still true, BUT unless all 5 are listed it's hard to know what is being described. (IMO) The page is organized to ONLY talk about the 'Key:smoothness, Value:Good' so discussion about the validity of 'smoothness', should be on the 'key:smoothness' page. If you all like the way this page is set up, i can then make similar pages for 'smoothness:excellent' (do describe what an "Excellent Smoothness (way)" IS), then the debate can be focused accordingly. re: Google Definition On a (kind of) side note, I made a note on the template talk page, as we have 'Google Definition' instead of 'Wikipedia' definition, or even Wikitionary? As this would provide a link which would probably be more helpful to users (i think we want to encourage use of Wikipedia :) re: voting system I have also added the not yet written page for 'voting system'. As; I agree with those working to find a better tagging approval system. Voting like Wikipedia (and other sites) with a simple 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down', where over thousands of votes it's clear. ... but it doesn't give a direct answer as to the 'why' its being approved. ..(opinionate? ... "to place an opinion?, where when more than 1 person places an opinion... you have a 'discussion' :-) re: suitability: If no objections, i can also go ahead and create the page of 'suitability' using this same format. re: Map Features page I would vote (opinionate :) ) that do to the fact that EVERYTHING that is listed in the subgroup of 'highway', so when you click on 'highway' you should get to the "key:highway" page, and on this page should list ALL of the Values for highway. .. then for the subclass, only list the subclass, with the link to how that subclass is used. There is no real need to have the same chart listed on duplicate pages. ::reason being, is that IF it gets changed, it's not possible to change it everywhere its listed So, a well worded summery of what the 'highway' tag means... should be good enough to tell the user that after they click on it, they will find everything they need to know about this tag. I hope this summarizes the discussion, :) Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
