Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 19/03/2015, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a
> reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used,
> and/or be very desirable.

Note that actual use is far more important than documentation. For
example, some time ago a change in tagging of power stations that had
gone through the wiki voting process by the book did not get
considered immediately because of usage stats and perceived
usefullness. The thread is worth reading in full for people interested
in osm-carto decision making :
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Jan van Bekkum]

I would assume that in this phase of the OSM lifecycle most new tags would
start in specialist renders. For example I expect that the current
discussion about campgrounds camp_site=* leading to different types of
campgrounds would be rendered in specialist renders for camping first and
would be rendered to more general maps once they gain momentum.

This makes it important that renderers can show "raw" attribute tags of
namespace tags they show. In this way I can see if more information is
hidden behind the symbol shown.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:20 AM Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 3/18/2015 2:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> > Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us
> > the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of
> > it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include
> > a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile?
> I should preface this by stating that these are my opinions, and I know
> other OpenStreetMap Carto maintainers look at it differently. They are
> also not the opinion of my employer, MapQuest, and the MapQuest Open
> style has different cartographic goals.
>
> There are no policies on what is rendered, and types of features are
> decided on a case by case basis.
>
> Normally the process of deciding to render a feature and deciding to
> render a particular tag are separate. You might decide you want to
> render bus stops, but also find that in the region you're rendering
> there is a GTFS feed with better data. In OpenStreetMap Carto, these two
> steps are more entwined. We're aiming at mappers and want to avoid
> additional sources of non-OSM data.
>
> A first consideration is technical. Some of the crazy relation types out
> there are not designed in a way that they can be reasonably rendered
> with a standard toolchain. If I can't figure out how to write the SQL to
> be able to get a data layer suitable for rendering, it almost certainly
> won't be rendered.
>
> I'm only interested in rendering established tags. The primary indicator
> of this is usage. There are some exceptions to this like national
> capitals, where there are only many of them. My view is that a tag
> should be able to obtain reasonable usage numbers on its own merits
> without being rendered. I also look beyond taginfo numbers to see if
> they are being skewed by a small number of contributors, mechanical
> edits, or a bulk import.
>
> We don't want to encourage difficult to consume tagging approach. This
> is why we will not use disused=yes. (#111)
>
> The wiki is a source I use, but just one among many.
>
> A good read is Andy's comment about changing tags:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-
> carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913.
> It is related.
>
> And of course, all of this is done in a limited amount of available
> time. If I decide to work on something with the style it means I'm not
> working on a different part of it. It's zero sum for me, and I always
> have more I can work on. Rendering new types of features is about bottom
> of the priority list for me right now.
>
> > Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal?
> In principle, if it were an established tag? Yes. It's very unlikely an
> established tag would not have a wiki page.
> > How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie,
> > cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions?
> I don't particularly consider the presence of specialist styles. There
> are styles for most topical interests these days.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Paul Norman]

On 3/18/2015 2:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us 
the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of 
it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include 
a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM tile?
I should preface this by stating that these are my opinions, and I know 
other OpenStreetMap Carto maintainers look at it differently. They are 
also not the opinion of my employer, MapQuest, and the MapQuest Open 
style has different cartographic goals.


There are no policies on what is rendered, and types of features are 
decided on a case by case basis.


Normally the process of deciding to render a feature and deciding to 
render a particular tag are separate. You might decide you want to 
render bus stops, but also find that in the region you're rendering 
there is a GTFS feed with better data. In OpenStreetMap Carto, these two 
steps are more entwined. We're aiming at mappers and want to avoid 
additional sources of non-OSM data.


A first consideration is technical. Some of the crazy relation types out 
there are not designed in a way that they can be reasonably rendered 
with a standard toolchain. If I can't figure out how to write the SQL to 
be able to get a data layer suitable for rendering, it almost certainly 
won't be rendered.


I'm only interested in rendering established tags. The primary indicator 
of this is usage. There are some exceptions to this like national 
capitals, where there are only many of them. My view is that a tag 
should be able to obtain reasonable usage numbers on its own merits 
without being rendered. I also look beyond taginfo numbers to see if 
they are being skewed by a small number of contributors, mechanical 
edits, or a bulk import.


We don't want to encourage difficult to consume tagging approach. This 
is why we will not use disused=yes. (#111)


The wiki is a source I use, but just one among many.

A good read is Andy's comment about changing tags: 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913. 
It is related.


And of course, all of this is done in a limited amount of available 
time. If I decide to work on something with the style it means I'm not 
working on a different part of it. It's zero sum for me, and I always 
have more I can work on. Rendering new types of features is about bottom 
of the priority list for me right now.



Would you render a tag without a wiki entry, or with just a proposal?
In principle, if it were an established tag? Yes. It's very unlikely an 
established tag would not have a wiki page.
How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, 
cyclists which has its own style impact your decisions?
I don't particularly consider the presence of specialist styles. There 
are styles for most topical interests these days.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Warin]

On 19/03/2015 2:44 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen 
mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>> wrote:


As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus
documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not
all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals
for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case
base.


Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a 
reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently 
used, and/or be very desirable. It is interesting that developers are 
discussing which tags to render as well as being discussed on the 
tagging mail list. It seems like we should have the benefit of both 
discussions. While not all tags need to be, or even should be 
displayed, I wonder if it might knowing if a tag is likely to be 
rendered would have an impact the acceptance of tags. It shouldn't, 
but it might sway voting.


Even more so, the decision by developers to add the tag to editors. I 
would think that having a tag supported by JOSM and iD would more 
quickly lead to its acceptance. Conversely, not including the tag 
could result in it being one of the many tags with limited use.


Voting is all well and good, but it seems like we need to encourage 
dialog with developers to support new tags or understand why they 
don't think the tag is worthwhile of their time and effort. I feel 
that voting should be just part of the approval process. If we, the 
mappers, feel like a new tag should be adopted, then we should make 
sure that developers share our belief. I am not saying that developers 
need to be part of the initial dialog. We would probaby scare them off 
from ever taling to us again!





I don't think renders will be interested so much in tags with low usage. 
And at the start new tags have low use thus they don't get rendered. 
Catch 22. So renders may not actually be too interested in the making of 
new tags?


To me (and I'm not a render) I'd render things that had a good wiki page 
with some idea of how to render it, lots of use and some 'significance' 
to the map .. the 'significance' will depend on the render and their 
desired application. For example cycle maps might include 'bicycle 
repair station' despite the low usage.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:

> As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
> the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
> development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
> trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus
> documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not
> all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals
> for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case
> base.
>

Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a
reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used,
and/or be very desirable. It is interesting that developers are discussing
which tags to render as well as being discussed on the tagging mail list.
It seems like we should have the benefit of both discussions. While not all
tags need to be, or even should be displayed, I wonder if it might knowing
if a tag is likely to be rendered would have an impact the acceptance of
tags. It shouldn't, but it might sway voting.

Even more so, the decision by developers to add the tag to editors. I would
think that having a tag supported by JOSM and iD would more quickly lead to
its acceptance. Conversely, not including the tag could result in it being
one of the many tags with limited use.

Voting is all well and good, but it seems like we need to encourage dialog
with developers to support new tags or understand why they don't think the
tag is worthwhile of their time and effort. I feel that voting should be
just part of the approval process. If we, the mappers, feel like a new tag
should be adopted, then we should make sure that developers share our
belief. I am not saying that developers need to be part of the initial
dialog. We would probaby scare them off from ever taling to us again!

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 March 2015 at 21:43, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> Paul,
> Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the
> process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be
> stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as part of
> the standard rendered OSM tile? Would you render a tag without a wiki entry,
> or with just a proposal?

I'm not Paul, but I can give you my view:
As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
trying to steer towards requiring an accepted proposal plus
documentation on the wiki before rendering a new tag, but I know not
all of the developers share this point of view. Currently, proposals
for newly rendered tags are currently discussed on a case by case
base.

> How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists
> which has its own style impact your decisions?

Objects aimed at specific user groups are less likely to be rendered,
and if they are rendered they will appear at higher zoomlevels. For
example, we don't render fire hydrants because they are of little
interest to the general public.

-- Matthijs

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate a
> tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for use,
> as there is no such thing.
>
> No approval is needed to create a new tag, to render a tag, or to
> otherwise do something with a tag that has not passed a wiki vote.
>

Paul,
Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the
process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must
be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag as
part of the standard rendered OSM tile? Would you render a tag without a
wiki entry, or with just a proposal?

How does the fact that it may be useful to specific groups, ie, cyclists
which has its own style impact your decisions?

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Paul Norman]

On 3/18/2015 2:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is 
currently a discussion going on, whether the current voting system for 
voting proposals should be changed.
Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate 
a tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for 
use, as there is no such thing.


No approval is needed to create a new tag, to render a tag, or to 
otherwise do something with a tag that has not passed a wiki vote.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting on voting system for proposals

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is currently a
discussion going on, whether the current voting system for voting proposals
should be changed.


This is the discussion so far:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/22969

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/9/1 Dave F. :
>  On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features&action=historysubmit&diff=424831&oldid=422949
>>
>> I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe
>> that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging]
>> is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>
> This is a page about voting on new ways to tag items so the tagging forum is
> the correct place.


The page is the main page that describes the proposal-process. Prior
to making a proposal I generally would suggest to ask others if they
already tag a specific thing in a certain way. If not I suggest to
discuss the best way to so in [tagging]. After discussion (and
eventually modification) of the definition, it should go to the
voting. I do not want everybody who wants to vote on new features to
read all the tagging-list contributions.

Personally I read both list (don't know how I can manage), so this is
not my personal concern. If most people here agree that tagging is
fine, I'm fine with it too.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process

[Ed Loach]

Martin wrote:

> I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I
> believe
> that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while
> [tagging]
> is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes.

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded at the moment, but I think [tagging] is a
better choice. If something is important then it should have its own
list, such as legal-talk, tagging, HOT and the like. If it's not
important then here is perfect (includes this email of mine).

Ed


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process

[Dave F.]

 On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features&action=historysubmit&diff=424831&oldid=422949

I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe
that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging]
is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes.

cheers,
Martin


This is a page about voting on new ways to tag items so the tagging 
forum is the correct place.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting process

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features&action=historysubmit&diff=424831&oldid=422949

I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe
that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while [tagging]
is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Simon Biber  wrote:
> Note that when the Wikipedia article was first created, the lowest-level 
> settlement was called "Lone Farmhouse". It was changed to "Isolated dwelling" 
> on 14 September, 2006.
>
> See the comparison of the contents before and after the change that 
> introduced the term "Isolated dwelling" here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_settlement&diff=75679894&oldid=74320556

You looked back further than I did. I do love the use of a Year 7 text
book as a source, though...

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Simon Biber]

From: Steve Bennett 
> Cool, did you 
notice the first link:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_hierarchy
> 
> 
That kind of settles it, really.


Note that when the Wikipedia article was first created, the lowest-level 
settlement was called "Lone Farmhouse". It was changed to "Isolated dwelling" 
on 14 September, 2006.

See the comparison of the contents before and after the change that introduced 
the term "Isolated dwelling" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_settlement&diff=75679894&oldid=74320556


Simon.



  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2010/5/5 Steve Bennett :
>> Sub-hamlet?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=subhamlet&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
> 9,600 hits
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22isolated+dwelling%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
> 39,900 hits

Cool, did you notice the first link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_hierarchy

That kind of settles it, really.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/5 John F. Eldredge :
> Since the English language defines a dwelling as a place where someone 
> dwells, I suspect that the UK government is using the term to mean structures 
> used as residences.  The proposed tag, on the other hand, would classify any 
> isolated building as an isolated_dwelling, even if it isn't a dwelling.


no, it wouldn't. An uninhabited place isn't a settlement either. The
proposal says: smallest form of settlement.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/5 John F. Eldredge :
> In English usage, a dwelling is a residence.  So, a farmhouse would be an 
> isolated dwelling; a building not used as a residence, such as a restaurant 
> or train station, would be an isolated building, but not an isolated dwelling.


sorry, I wasn't clear, I intended an inhabited trainstation or a
tavern / roadhouse, not a restaurant. The same for the mill, which was
suggesting someone living there rather than focussing on the milling
process.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[John F. Eldredge]

Since the English language defines a dwelling as a place where someone dwells, 
I suspect that the UK government is using the term to mean structures used as 
residences.  The proposed tag, on the other hand, would classify any isolated 
building as an isolated_dwelling, even if it isn't a dwelling.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-Original Message-
From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:59:57 
To: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

2010/5/5 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
> 2010/5/5 Steve Bennett :
>> Sub-hamlet?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=subhamlet&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
> 9,600 hits
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22isolated+dwelling%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
> 39,900 hits


btw, the UK government seems to use this term as well:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolorg/faqs.cfm?id=114

__

"Rural Schools
...
What does Edubase record as the rural/urban classifications? Q : What
does Edubase record as the rural/urban classifications?

Edubase (www.edubase.gov.uk) records the rural/urban classifications as follows:

The two Urban values are:
·   Urban > 10k - sparse
·Urban > 10k - less sparse

The six other values are classified as Rural:
·Town and Fringe - sparse
·Village - sparse
·Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling - sparse
·Town and Fringe - less sparse
·Village - less sparse
·Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling - less sparse"
__


cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[John F. Eldredge]

In English usage, a dwelling is a residence.  So, a farmhouse would be an 
isolated dwelling; a building not used as a residence, such as a restaurant or 
train station, would be an isolated building, but not an isolated dwelling.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett 
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:13:32 
To: 
Cc: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > I agree to this,
but the name "isolated_dwelling" was the translation
> I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the
> German scientific term "Einzelsiedlung", which describes the smallest
> entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of
> farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for
> place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's
> houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or "houses". Of
> course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms.

Sub-hamlet?

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/5 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
> 2010/5/5 Steve Bennett :
>> Sub-hamlet?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=subhamlet&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
> 9,600 hits
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22isolated+dwelling%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
> 39,900 hits


btw, the UK government seems to use this term as well:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolorg/faqs.cfm?id=114

__

"Rural Schools
...
What does Edubase record as the rural/urban classifications? Q : What
does Edubase record as the rural/urban classifications?

Edubase (www.edubase.gov.uk) records the rural/urban classifications as follows:

The two Urban values are:
·   Urban > 10k - sparse
·Urban > 10k - less sparse

The six other values are classified as Rural:
·Town and Fringe - sparse
·Village - sparse
·Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling - sparse
·Town and Fringe - less sparse
·Village - less sparse
·Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling - less sparse"
__


cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/5 Steve Bennett :
> Sub-hamlet?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=subhamlet&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
9,600 hits

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22isolated+dwelling%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
39,900 hits

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[clara]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I think "isolated_dwelling" fits the German understanding of the
"Einzelsiedlung" better, then trying to adapt the very english term
"hamlet" for this.

greetings
clara

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > I agree to this,
> but the name "isolated_dwelling" was the translation
>> I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the
>> German scientific term "Einzelsiedlung", which describes the smallest
>> entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of
>> farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for
>> place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's
>> houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or "houses". Of
>> course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms.
> 
> Sub-hamlet?
> 
> Steve
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkvhTpIACgkQFG+ybKbbdMBcNwCg4rpp6tMjEaTonuKatjdrzoy/
g9kAoKWCCFw1oSsXgQzJZ2jnVg33FW/c
=IeYQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > I agree to this,
but the name "isolated_dwelling" was the translation
> I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the
> German scientific term "Einzelsiedlung", which describes the smallest
> entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of
> farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for
> place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's
> houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or "houses". Of
> course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms.

Sub-hamlet?

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/4 John Smith :
> Towns and hamlets are usually incorporated in one form or another,
> isolated buildings aren't, in any case you can tell how isolated a
> building is by comparing features around it, you don't need to
> explicitly say it's isolated.


I agree to this, but the name "isolated_dwelling" was the translation
I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the
German scientific term "Einzelsiedlung", which describes the smallest
entity of human settlements (below hamlets). I discourage the use of
farm as this is about usage and not about the size. Examples for
place=isolated_dwelling that are not farms are mills, forester's
houses, small isolated trainstations, restaurants or "houses". Of
course most isolated dwellings (at least in Germany) are indeed farms.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[John Smith]

On 4 May 2010 13:52, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> No. Houses don't generally have names, they have numbers. This

Rural properties in Australia, even those close to towns, often have
names... Even if the rural renumbering scheme has also given these
places numbers... Houses located within towns usually don't have
names, although some do.

> effectively they're a town by themselves. Only they're too small to be
> towns, or even hamlets. Hence, "isolated dwellings".

Towns and hamlets are usually incorporated in one form or another,
isolated buildings aren't, in any case you can tell how isolated a
building is by comparing features around it, you don't need to
explicitly say it's isolated.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Dave F.  wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> please vote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
>>
>
> Err... Aren't those called houses?

No. Houses don't generally have names, they have numbers. This
proposal is about houses that are so isolated that they don't have
street numbers, and they're not even associated with a town. So
effectively they're a town by themselves. Only they're too small to be
towns, or even hamlets. Hence, "isolated dwellings".

HTH.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/3 Dave F. :
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Well, OK, but you did use the term 'households'
>
> Why not use the standard landuse=residential?


Because this is about place and not about landuse. I understand place
as a tag for human settlements which vary from very small (isolated
dwellings) to hamlets, towns, cities and IMHO also metropolis.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Dave F.]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> yes, it could be houses. It could also be a cave or a tent, but mostly
> it will be houses. This is a term for settlement classification, not
> about building types.
>   

Well, OK, but you did use the term 'households'

Why not use the standard landuse=residential?

That's what I've used with just a few properties out on their own.


Is your name Martin? If so (or even if not), do you *really* have to use 
that spell checker aggravating graphic?

Ta
Dave F.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/4/29 Dave F. :
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> please vote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
>>
>
> Err... Aren't those called houses?


yes, it could be houses. It could also be a cave or a tent, but mostly
it will be houses. This is a term for settlement classification, not
about building types.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[Dave F.]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> please vote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
>   

Err... Aren't those called houses?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

please vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition

[sergio sevillano]

Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:

2009/9/17 Blaž Lorger :
  

Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importance&diff=16&oldid=333013

Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to  '''Yes'''
and similar change was made for "no" votes.



actually I don't see the difference ;-), we are counting the votes
manually, IMHO it doesn't make any difference, so recasting of those
votes doesn't seem appropriate to me...

What I forgot: please also point the subscribers of the local lists to
this voting (I already announced on German and Italian ML as well).

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  
Doesent the wiki system change {{vote|yes}} to "yes" or "approved" 
automatically?

i would not recast or change votes posted.
The standard way of voting is better, but other format is ok to me as 
long as the vote is clear.
But if someone else changes a vote afterward is more complex to find who 
voted what and when.


s
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/9/17 Blaž Lorger :
> Here
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importance&diff=16&oldid=333013
>
> Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to  '''Yes'''
> and similar change was made for "no" votes.

actually I don't see the difference ;-), we are counting the votes
manually, IMHO it doesn't make any difference, so recasting of those
votes doesn't seem appropriate to me...

What I forgot: please also point the subscribers of the local lists to
this voting (I already announced on German and Italian ML as well).

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition

[Blaž Lorger]

Here 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importance&diff=16&oldid=333013

Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to  '''Yes''' 
and similar change was made for "no" votes.


On Wednesday 16 September 2009 22:19:40 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Blaž Lorger :
> > I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text.
> > Should those votes be recast?
> 
> who changed them?
> 
> Martin
> 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/9/16 Blaž Lorger :
> I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should
> those votes be recast?

who changed them?

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition

[Blaž Lorger]

I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should 
those votes be recast?

On Wednesday 16 September 2009 09:46:16 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for
> highway-definition here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance
> 
> I suggest to not delete already given votes as they still represent
> voter's opinion, even if voting wasn't "officially" opened.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for
highway-definition here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance

I suggest to not delete already given votes as they still represent
voter's opinion, even if voting wasn't "officially" opened.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [voting] geological=palaeontological_site

[marcellobil...@gmail]

Deal all,
voting is opened:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/geological=palaeontolog
ical_site

Best regards
Marcello B.


Proposal-RFC Start: 2009-08-12
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-August/040238.html
Vote-Start: 2009-08-27


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [voting] historic=paleontological_site

[marcellobil...@gmail]

Deal all,
voting is opened:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/paleontological_site

Best regards
Marcello B.



-
( proposed: Sun Jul 19 )
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038714.html


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi all,
I'm trying to get a definative answer for all the tags.
So far so good. :-)
it looks like its unanaimous that the 'canvec:description' tags get removed.
So thats cool, its not that hard to remove those tags. :)

Any comments about the other tags, why they should be removed or kept?

Im sure many tags CAN be removed, we just need to clearly post on the wiki why.

Im now adjusting the script so that all the tags get stored gzipped in
a folder, so it can be used if needed as a backup.

Thanks,
Sam

On 6/19/09, Tyler  wrote:
>>
>> Out of the "Buildings and structures" page, yes, there is however
>> more useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM
>> too, beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities
>>  page.
>
>
> Yes, what Andrzej (how is that pronounced?) said. Though I would also
> include the Attribute code on the buildings and structures page (and
> equivalent codes elsewhere). With just a canvec:attribcode= that could then
> be referenced to a database of features
>
> So the original CODE would be good for reference and does not introduce
>> redundancy in the data.  However, converting it to 4 different tags in
>> osm
>> does add redundancy.
>
>
> Agreed, same essential reasoning as above. It's not really that difficult
> to
> pull together multiple data sources if you can easily cross reference
> datasets. There aren't tags in the database like 'building_desc="a man-made
> structure used for housing people and objects"' for good reason: they
> aren't
> necessary and it can be cross-referenced.
>
> Information such as the year and technique of acquisition (VALDATE, AQTECH)
>> is what the "source=" tag is sometimes used for in OSM.  I'd even include
>> the CanVec code (CODE) because the mapping from one tagset to another...
>
>
> Agreed, with reservations. There's no reason to lose information, but is
> that information encoded in anything else already like the object code or
> source?. To me canvec:Theme seems especially redundant (with the exception
> of water saturated soils) if there were a translation rule that was
> followed
> to go from canvec:Theme to standard OSM key:value pairs then it's
> unnecessary and redundant and no data is lost in the transition (you could
> always go back and re-create the canvec theme).
>
> Finally, if we don't want the extra information that is clearly in canvec
> (and other data sources) with no OSM analogues I feel there are two ways to
> resolve it.
>
>1. Make appropriate OSM tags and include it
>2. Fork OSM to a project that does want to include as much data as
>possible
>
> And no one likes forks.
>
> -Tyler
>


-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities

[Tyler]

>
> Out of the "Buildings and structures" page, yes, there is however
> more useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM
> too, beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities
>  page.


Yes, what Andrzej (how is that pronounced?) said. Though I would also
include the Attribute code on the buildings and structures page (and
equivalent codes elsewhere). With just a canvec:attribcode= that could then
be referenced to a database of features

So the original CODE would be good for reference and does not introduce
> redundancy in the data.  However, converting it to 4 different tags in osm
> does add redundancy.


Agreed, same essential reasoning as above. It's not really that difficult to
pull together multiple data sources if you can easily cross reference
datasets. There aren't tags in the database like 'building_desc="a man-made
structure used for housing people and objects"' for good reason: they aren't
necessary and it can be cross-referenced.

Information such as the year and technique of acquisition (VALDATE, AQTECH)
> is what the "source=" tag is sometimes used for in OSM.  I'd even include
> the CanVec code (CODE) because the mapping from one tagset to another...


Agreed, with reservations. There's no reason to lose information, but is
that information encoded in anything else already like the object code or
source?. To me canvec:Theme seems especially redundant (with the exception
of water saturated soils) if there were a translation rule that was followed
to go from canvec:Theme to standard OSM key:value pairs then it's
unnecessary and redundant and no data is lost in the transition (you could
always go back and re-create the canvec theme).

Finally, if we don't want the extra information that is clearly in canvec
(and other data sources) with no OSM analogues I feel there are two ways to
resolve it.

   1. Make appropriate OSM tags and include it
   2. Fork OSM to a project that does want to include as much data as
   possible

And no one likes forks.

-Tyler
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities

[andrzej zaborowski]

2009/6/20 Ian Dees :
> In my opinion, the only data that should be imported as tags on geographic
> features in the OSM database is the data in the "OSM Tags" column on the
> "Buildings and structures" page. The other columns of data should not be
> included as tags.

Out of the "Buildings and structures" page, yes, there is however more
useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM too,
beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities
page.

Information such as the year and technique of acquisition (VALDATE,
AQTECH) is what the "source=" tag is sometimes used for in OSM.  I'd
even include the CanVec code (CODE) because the mapping from one
tagset to another (i.e. what the "Buildings and structures" chart
attempts to do) is never unambiguous, it's like a conversion from
fixed-point to floating-point representation (it introduces rounding
errors) or a translation from french to english ("lost in
translation"?).  So the original CODE would be good for reference and
does not introduce redundancy in the data.  However, converting it to
4 different tags in osm does add redundancy.

I also need to relate to Sam's argument that in the future people may
demand that the data in the database be more readable and
self-explanatory.  I think you wrongly think that the bus / train
route and schedule planners will be looking at the raw data from the
database, I think that's a flawed assumption.  If they even get near
OSM it will be only through a specialised editor that will convert
human readable (pretty icons, buttons etc) into machine readable and
back (OSM tags).  The user never gets to see the OSM tags, so there's
no point making them self-explanatory.

Cheers

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities

[Ian Dees]

In my opinion, the only data that should be imported as tags on geographic
features in the OSM database is the data in the "OSM Tags" column on the
"Buildings and structures" page. The other columns of data should not be
included as tags.

- The data in the "Canvec Feature" column is a duplicate of the code (right?
you determine the feature type based on that code)
- The geometry type column is implied by how the data is structured in OSM
- The "Attribute Value" column is a duplicate of the "attribute code"
column.
- The "Attribute Description" column does not belong in the OSM geographic
database. If you want to design a metadata database for OSM, go ahead and
stick this sort of information in there.

In general, the "metadata" that describes what the values mean should not be
stored in the same database as the geographic data. The shapefile format
does this. There is a .shp file that stores the geographic data, an .xml
file that stores the description of the attributes of that geographic data,
and a .dbf file that holds the values of the attributes for that geographic
data.

The OSM database is the geographic database and the values of attributes for
that geographic data. The description of the attributes does not belong in
the same location.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Sam Vekemans
wrote:

> Cool :)
> (I cc'd OSGeo & NRCan, so their in the loop too.) Decisions here means a
> addition or subtraction of about a Gig or so of data.
>
> So this is why i stopped uploading.  Would have been nice to have heard
> more voices from the start, lol..  or maybe i wasn't listening .. lol
>
> I'm looking back at the charts.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Buildings_and_structures
>
> I've added a column for each attribute which is common to all entities.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities
>
> I've gone over each tag row to discuss each. Where we can use the talk page
> to discuss further.
>
> I set it up so that people can indicate if they 'approve' or 'dissaprove'
> of that particular row, and then id/stamp and the write why they chose that.
>
> Most of the 'pending' could be probably 'disapproved', however, i feel that
> we need to answer it more than just 'we dont like it', and the answer of the
> persentage of users is also vague.
>
> We need to ask ourselves.  How do we see OpenStreetMap.org basemap look in
> 5 years from now?  (OSM is still a little kid) ... kinda like Facebook.
>
> Will city planners be using OSM as the main database which lists all the
> city boundaries, and all 'official' information? ... Bus Transit planners,
> Train Schedual planners, .. etc..
> If so, then the extra tags that i included initially are needed, just as we
> would expect the city planners to post their reference numbers and lot
> numbers to represent how surveyors mark data on a map.   (CanVec would not
> have included those tags if they went of value to people).
>
> Do we want the National Power grid to become the defult one that everyone
> uses?  When this import is done, we WILL have the national power grid
> imported, and available.  But usefull?
>
> Do we want to make the OSM database engineer friendly?  If so, we need to
> include all the tags.  .. and ask engeneers.. Is the osm database friendly
> to you in your field?
>
> If our goal is to become the defult map, where Google even sees our map as
> valuable and uses our database licence and shows OSM as the defult basemap,
> as more and more people recognize the value of this map (ie. where Google
> can explain to Bus Companies how to merge the data to the OSM system).   ...
> then we need to step it up a notch, and allow for more tags and more
> possable usages.   (imagine the complete RoadMap) ... Canada will be that by
> the end of the year) ... where then looking for more to map.
>
> Ie. a map can get made of all of the data which was acquired at a specific
> date.  Or by a specific technique.
> Once OSM is able to use the altitude and accuracy information from GPS
> Tracks, this information can become more valuable.
>
> In JOSM its possable to be merging and copying item tags, perhaps expand on
> that ability?
>
> There isn't a limit of the number of tags provided we see it as
> 'useful'.   So we here need to explain how we define 'useful' for a database
> in 5 years from now.
>
> So anyway, look forward to more discussions.  Play nice :)
>
> Cheers,
> Sam Vekemans
> Across Canada Trails
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting CanVec OSM Map Features: Attributes common to all entities

[Sam Vekemans]

Cool :)
(I cc'd OSGeo & NRCan, so their in the loop too.) Decisions here means a
addition or subtraction of about a Gig or so of data.

So this is why i stopped uploading.  Would have been nice to have heard more
voices from the start, lol..  or maybe i wasn't listening .. lol

I'm looking back at the charts.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Buildings_and_structures

I've added a column for each attribute which is common to all entities.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities

I've gone over each tag row to discuss each. Where we can use the talk page
to discuss further.

I set it up so that people can indicate if they 'approve' or 'dissaprove' of
that particular row, and then id/stamp and the write why they chose that.

Most of the 'pending' could be probably 'disapproved', however, i feel that
we need to answer it more than just 'we dont like it', and the answer of the
persentage of users is also vague.

We need to ask ourselves.  How do we see OpenStreetMap.org basemap look in 5
years from now?  (OSM is still a little kid) ... kinda like Facebook.

Will city planners be using OSM as the main database which lists all the
city boundaries, and all 'official' information? ... Bus Transit planners,
Train Schedual planners, .. etc..
If so, then the extra tags that i included initially are needed, just as we
would expect the city planners to post their reference numbers and lot
numbers to represent how surveyors mark data on a map.   (CanVec would not
have included those tags if they went of value to people).

Do we want the National Power grid to become the defult one that everyone
uses?  When this import is done, we WILL have the national power grid
imported, and available.  But usefull?

Do we want to make the OSM database engineer friendly?  If so, we need to
include all the tags.  .. and ask engeneers.. Is the osm database friendly
to you in your field?

If our goal is to become the defult map, where Google even sees our map as
valuable and uses our database licence and shows OSM as the defult basemap,
as more and more people recognize the value of this map (ie. where Google
can explain to Bus Companies how to merge the data to the OSM system).   ...
then we need to step it up a notch, and allow for more tags and more
possable usages.   (imagine the complete RoadMap) ... Canada will be that by
the end of the year) ... where then looking for more to map.

Ie. a map can get made of all of the data which was acquired at a specific
date.  Or by a specific technique.
Once OSM is able to use the altitude and accuracy information from GPS
Tracks, this information can become more valuable.

In JOSM its possable to be merging and copying item tags, perhaps expand on
that ability?

There isn't a limit of the number of tags provided we see it as
'useful'.   So we here need to explain how we define 'useful' for a database
in 5 years from now.

So anyway, look forward to more discussions.  Play nice :)

Cheers,
Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Voting] mtb:scale, a tag a bit like sac_scale for mountain bike trail difficulty

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 27 November 2008 06:50:58 pm sylvain letuffe wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale

it is mountainbiking and not moutainbiking (could not edit that part)

-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [Voting] mtb:scale, a tag a bit like sac_scale for mountain bike trail difficulty

[sylvain letuffe]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale

The voting period is rather long : 3 month, so please take you time. But I 
think that's what we lack all the time.

Every month i'll give a sumary here of late changes (if any) and the ongoing 
vote result.

As the current dictator of this democracy page, I will allow unilateraly any 
one to remove my status of dictator whenever he wants and to revert is vote 
whenever he wants (it seams obvious, but it isn't mentionned anywhere )

-- 
Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [Voting] Re-opening the smoothness vote page ?

[sylvain letuffe]

For a bit of history, I have opened the smoothness voting windows for a 3 
month period
from 2008-09-20
to 2008-12-20

Because I thought, as pieren also privatly suggested me, that voting and RFC 
are just too short perioded

So, in my mind and thought I overcome usual 1 month period with a trade off of 
3 month. ( I would have gone for 6 if that was only me )

After around 1 month, some one unilateraly decided to approved this feature 
because many "yes" where allready there and that nothing will change.
I remove his changed arguing that "yes" are not a suffisent value on their 
own, a very good coming (argumented !!) opposition will make me revert my 
vote, yeah ! even on my own proposal. I've allready done that.

But because I faced opposition of my opposition, I revert my changes and made 
it "approved" At that right moment, a mail of needed help on that list would 
have been a good idea from me.
 
BUT !!!

All this is not finished, I start remembering the book "World in Eighty Days", 
until last ultimate limit, not every thing is done.

The original ending period is 2008-12-20, that leaves 24 days for other 
arguments until now.

I doubt that will end in a "Refused" proposal, but good comment are still 
welcome, things might still change, and less subjectives idea are welcome

-- 
Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting on enforcement (traffic law enforcement)

[Tristan Scott]

Can people please have a look at this proposal and vote please?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement

This is modified after the previous proposal threw up comments about
collionions with highway=traffic_signals last time.

As for the Compass directions as well as way-ward directions... I
expected some nodes to apply to directions rather than specific ways,
and also for some nodes to not be on a way and have no specific area
of effect (van commonly behind this bush here pointing north towards
this motorway junction for example)
enforcement_direction which is on a way and applies only to the way
it's on would use the (proposed) along/opposite/both tags.
Maybe that needs to be made more clear in the proposal?

Anyway - Can people have a look and vote please!

-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Ed Loach]

> Haven't seen any cases where the same camera covers both
> directions of a
> dual carriageway, but if it happens somewhere, why not just add
> two
> nodes on each side?

How about those cases where the camera is between the carriageways
and gets swung around to cover opposite sides at irregular
intervals? I guess one node to indicate the speed camera and then
somehow two directions of coverage, perhaps with a note that it is
only one or the other at any given time.

Although the ones I'm thinking of on the A14 have been replaced by
different types, I think I've seen them elsewhere in the West
Midlands.

Ed



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Ben Laenen]

On Friday 17 October 2008, Tristan Scott wrote:
> righto; votes cleared. proposal modified. new vote set in a week's
> time.
>
> I'm not keen on the enforcement direction being forwards and
> backwards. I can think of examples:
> * Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation
> to the direction of enforcement

I thought one would tag nodes on the highway where it's enforced, not 
the location of the devices themselves? I don't think it's easy to 
unambiguously make the connection of a speed camera on top of a bridge 
(which would then be tagged as a node of the bridge I guess?) with the 
highway below where the speed is enforced?

> * On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways
> cross, in which case forwards and backwards are meaningless (two or
> more ways share the node)

But so would N/E/S/W be if two roads cross at sharp angles and both 
roads would be in the N sector for example. A third method is needed...

> * Off a carriageway on a node covering one or more ways (where
> direction is important but not given by a way)

Haven't seen any cases where the same camera covers both directions of a 
dual carriageway, but if it happens somewhere, why not just add two 
nodes on each side?

Ben

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Sascha Silbe]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 06:40:12PM +0100, Tristan Scott wrote:

* Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation 
to the

direction of enforcement

In that case, a relation (no pun intended) would be better.

* On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways 
cross,
in which case forwards and backwards are meaningless (two or more ways 
share

the node)

Seems to be similar to a turn restriction => copy from there.

* Off a carriageway on a node covering one or more ways (where 
direction is

important but not given by a way)

Yet another argument for using a relation. ;)

CU Sascha

--
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Tristan Scott]

righto; votes cleared. proposal modified. new vote set in a week's time.

I'm not keen on the enforcement direction being forwards and backwards. I
can think of examples:
* Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation to the
direction of enforcement
* On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways cross,
in which case forwards and backwards are meaningless (two or more ways share
the node)
* Off a carriageway on a node covering one or more ways (where direction is
important but not given by a way)
...so I'm going to leave that as-is

Plus direction I've got in mind as a data_type (see maxspeed thread on the
mailing list, and also my comments on "waypoints with directions") so it
would be good to be more generic.

Tristan

2008/10/17 David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Tristan Scott
> > To: Frederik Ramm
> > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
> >
> >
> > Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it
> would
> > be a better scheme to use "traffic_enforcement=speed" instead of both
> > "highway=traffic_enforcement" AND "enforcement_type=speed"
> >
> > Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to
> > help.
> > What's the correct procedure now to change this sort of thing?
> >
> > Do we need to stop this proposal, construct a new one and RFC it before
> > voting again (in a month's time!)
> > Or could we, for example, clear the votes, modify the proposal and
> request
> > votes again?
> > Or, given this isn't my proposal, should I keep my nose out? :)
> >
> > It strikes me that good suggestions like this can't be handled by the
> vote
> > system, and don't seem to get picked up at the RFC stage... so you end up
> > knowing what the "best" solution is, yet approving something that isn't
> > it.
> >
> > Tristan
> >
>
> I'm all for clearing the votes, rewriting the proposal, and then voting on
> the new proposal in say a week.
>
> All except one of the votes was made today, presumably in response to your
> earlier posting, so it might be safe to assume that those who have already
> approved the tagging read this mailing list and will see the proposal is
> being changed.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[David Groom]

>
> - Original Message - 
> From: Tristan Scott
> To: Frederik Ramm
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
>
>
> Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would
> be a better scheme to use "traffic_enforcement=speed" instead of both
> "highway=traffic_enforcement" AND "enforcement_type=speed"
>
> Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to
> help.
> What's the correct procedure now to change this sort of thing?
>
> Do we need to stop this proposal, construct a new one and RFC it before
> voting again (in a month's time!)
> Or could we, for example, clear the votes, modify the proposal and request
> votes again?
> Or, given this isn't my proposal, should I keep my nose out? :)
>
> It strikes me that good suggestions like this can't be handled by the vote
> system, and don't seem to get picked up at the RFC stage... so you end up
> knowing what the "best" solution is, yet approving something that isn't 
> it.
>
> Tristan
>

I'm all for clearing the votes, rewriting the proposal, and then voting on 
the new proposal in say a week.

All except one of the votes was made today, presumably in response to your 
earlier posting, so it might be safe to assume that those who have already 
approved the tagging read this mailing list and will see the proposal is 
being changed.

David



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Tristan Scott]

Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would
be a better scheme to use "traffic_enforcement=speed" instead of both
"highway=traffic_enforcement" AND "enforcement_type=speed"

Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to
help.
What's the correct procedure now to change this sort of thing?

Do we need to stop this proposal, construct a new one and RFC it before
voting again (in a month's time!)
Or could we, for example, clear the votes, modify the proposal and request
votes again?
Or, given this isn't my proposal, should I keep my nose out? :)

It strikes me that good suggestions like this can't be handled by the vote
system, and don't seem to get picked up at the RFC stage... so you end up
knowing what the "best" solution is, yet approving something that isn't it.

Tristan

2008/10/17 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi,
>
> On 17.10.2008, at 13:46, Tristan Scott wrote:
>
>> I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can have it
>> approved - I for one would find it invaluable.
>>
>
> Then don't wait - just use it. If there is *anything* you find invaluable,
> don't wait for others to say they find it too (or not).
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
>
>


-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 17.10.2008, at 13:46, Tristan Scott wrote:
> I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can  
> have it approved - I for one would find it invaluable.

Then don't wait - just use it. If there is *anything* you find  
invaluable, don't wait for others to say they find it too (or not).

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement

[Tristan Scott]

This is a voting request for traffic_enforcement (as no-one seems to know
about it?)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement

I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can have it
approved - I for one would find it invaluable. Such an item is already
available as paid-for POI sets for TomTom and other SatNavs, and on public
maps like the AA street map and, most other paper roadmaps in the uk (but
not ordnance survey).

Thanks!

-- 
Tristan Scott BSc(Hons)
Yare Valley Technical Services
www.yvts.co.uk
07837 205829
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process (was: Re: Map Features, maxspeed and maplint)

[Marc Schütz]

> [...] By all means keep the proposal and RFC parts, and
> maybe back them up with TagWatch links.

+1

Regards, Marc

-- 
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting process (was: Re: Map Features, maxspeed and maplint)

[Dave Stubbs]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Tordanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shaun McDonald schrieb:
>> In my opinion the voting process is broken, as it can potentially vote
>> in proposals that will break backwards compatibility and require
>> extensively more complex processing of the data. Take for example:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Status
>
> Yes, proposals can break backwards compatiblity. I do not believe this
> is a bad thing at all – if a new concept is better than an old one, then
> maintaining b.c. is the last thing I want, especially in a project with
> as random and insufficient "standards" as ours. That is not to say that
> b.c. isn't desirable, but it should by no means be required for new ideas.
>
> Moreover, the possibility to break b.c. is not limited to proposals –
> the competing concepts of "just add it to the wiki" and "just use it"
> can break b.c. as well, if not easier.
>

Quite true. But the voting process lends a degree of legitimacy and
officialness (where neither really exists) to the uninitiated masses
(and some of the deluded too).
That proposal is quite interesting for several reasons, but mostly
because it's so close, and yet the voting reasons are so varied. One
voter recently voted against it because they didn't like the key name,
compared to lots of people opposing because of the way it breaks
things. Most people supporting it want it because they want a way to
say something is under construction or similar, and don't seem to have
really considered whether it's the best way at all. There's several
comments about improving/degrading rendering performance, which
frankly is a laughable argument either way as it'll make negligible
impact. Then there's the rather nebulous "scalability" argument:
apparently it's scalable, or it's not scalable, I haven't really
figured out what this actually means in the context except that people
are very insistent that it is/isn't.

Anyway, should the vote "pass" by 1 or two votes, some wiki-person
will promote it to map features where all the discussion will be gone.
I'll almost certainly add a section to it's description to discourage
it's use, which will almost certainly be removed by someone else
claiming this is not the place for discussion and that it's an
approved feature don't you know.

Meanwhile the a few of the front page renderings, most of the routing
engines and a pile of other tools you've never heard of will continue
to simply ignore it. Just like they ignore the "disused" tag which has
all the same problems and I wasn't even aware existed (hence why it is
such a big problem).

So while breaking backwards compatibility is not always a bad thing, I
think you do need a _real_ consensus that it's a Good Thing before you
go away and tell everyone to do it.


> I readily admit that voting has its flaws. Looking at the quoted
> proposal, you'll find that two of those who voted against it
> (Nibblenibble and Basemonkey) have only a single contribution in the
> wiki – the vote –[1], have created their accounts the same day they
> voted[2] and have cast their votes within 30 minutes from each other.
> Also, at the time of this writing, no OSM accounts exist whose names
> correspond to these wiki accounts. The two still might be legit voters
> (and when in doubt, it's probably fair to assume they are), but it's
> impossible to tell.
>
> But even this doesn't mean that voting is useless. The RFC+voting serves
> as a way to initiate discussion, collect ideas and encourage sufficient
> documentation. We are not talking about legally binding decisions here,
> it's just a tool for these purposes. And if someone has better tools to
> offer, I will prefer these, of course. It's just that this hasn't
> happened yet.

I'll grant you that the RFC does initiate discussion. And that voting
certainly causes a discussion frenzy on the more controversial items.
Beyond that though I'm not sure what it is trying to achieve. The
effect is "approval" or "disapproval" which actually means very little
except as a large stick to beat anybody who disagrees with the result
when they try to create/edit pages documenting actual usage on the
wiki. It's given people the idea there's such a thing as deprecation
too.

Some better tools would be awesome, but you're right, they don't exist
so we currently have the choice of voting or nothing, and personally
I'd prefer nothing. By all means keep the proposal and RFC parts, and
maybe back them up with TagWatch links.

Dave
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting on platform (railway and bus)started

[Thorsten Feles]

As there are no new commends in the RFC for a while, I just started the
voting on the platform tag.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/platform

Thorsten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting process (was: Re: Map Features, maxspeed and maplint)

[Tordanik]

Shaun McDonald schrieb:
> In my opinion the voting process is broken, as it can potentially vote
> in proposals that will break backwards compatibility and require
> extensively more complex processing of the data. Take for example:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Status

Yes, proposals can break backwards compatiblity. I do not believe this
is a bad thing at all – if a new concept is better than an old one, then
maintaining b.c. is the last thing I want, especially in a project with
as random and insufficient “standards” as ours. That is not to say that
b.c. isn't desirable, but it should by no means be required for new ideas.

Moreover, the possibility to break b.c. is not limited to proposals –
the competing concepts of “just add it to the wiki” and “just use it”
can break b.c. as well, if not easier.

I readily admit that voting has its flaws. Looking at the quoted
proposal, you'll find that two of those who voted against it
(Nibblenibble and Basemonkey) have only a single contribution in the
wiki – the vote –[1], have created their accounts the same day they
voted[2] and have cast their votes within 30 minutes from each other.
Also, at the time of this writing, no OSM accounts exist whose names
correspond to these wiki accounts. The two still might be legit voters
(and when in doubt, it's probably fair to assume they are), but it's
impossible to tell.

But even this doesn't mean that voting is useless. The RFC+voting serves
as a way to initiate discussion, collect ideas and encourage sufficient
documentation. We are not talking about legally binding decisions here,
it's just a tool for these purposes. And if someone has better tools to
offer, I will prefer these, of course. It's just that this hasn't
happened yet.

Tordanik

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Nibblenibble
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Basemonkey
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Nibblenibble
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Nibblenibble

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting started on the vending machine proposal

[Thorsten Feles]

Voting started on the vending machine proposal

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/vending_machine).

Please do not hesitate to give you vote !

Thorsten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting has started

[wer-ist-roger]

Hello everyone,

After 1 1/2 month of discussion about tagging the voting for "k=highway|
v=emergency_access_point has started".
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Emergency_access_point#Vote

wer-ist-roger

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting has started

[wer-ist-roger]

Hello everyone,

After 1 1/2 month of discussion about tagging the voting for "k=highway|
v=emergency_access_point has started".

wer-ist-roger

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting Proposed features/Surveillance?

[Jens Herrmann]

Hello,
I was looking for a way to tag surveillance cameras in my city. On the 
German mailing list someone pointed me to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Surveillance
a proposal made in December 2006 which didnt make it to the voting process.
Among the suggestions given in the discussion were the use a special 
layer and the restriction to nodes which I would support both.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features#Proposed_Features_-_Man_made
 
has an entry for the tag, already. What do I have to do to start the vote?

Regards
Jens Herrmann





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Robin Paulson]

On 09/04/2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most
>  know that I'm an advocate of the "let it evolve" approach.

me too. it should evolve - but settling on agreed ways of doing things
does not prevent evolution

>  SteveC pointed me last night to this:
>  http://youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0
>  If you haven't seen it already its principally discussing the arguments and
>  issues surrounding wikipedia and whether it can stand for truth or not.

there is no truth. only commonly agreed upon values. this can be
applied to society, wikipedia or osm, any group of individuals with a
common aim

>  OSM basically has the same dilemma. There will always be those that think
>  the prescribed approach, and this applies beyond tags too, is the only way
>  the project will be considered authoritative and therefore in the longer
>  term useful/successful. I don't hold this view, and this is why.

prescribed != non-evolving

>  Like another poster I too use international standards in my life as an
>  engineer. But daily I come across poorly conceived standards and differences
>  in interpretation, usage and supposedly equivalent standards in different
>  jurisdictions. I also see standards having to change with time and that
>  these changes don't usually keep pace with technological developments or new
>  research and best practice.

that isn't a failing of standards per se, though, only with their
implementation. some engineers are lazy and can't be bothered reading
how the standard should work (by the way, another engineer here), but
that doesn't mean the standard has no value

i use standards every day too, and plenty of them change every few
years. why don't they change more? well, the standards committees have
to meet, which costs money (which isn't available), work has to be
done researching methods (which is expensive and time-consuming). as a
result, standards committees appear slow to move and out of touch

we have a wiki, and everyone can cheaply get together and
investigate/discuss if a new process is useful or not, so we can
update the 'standard' every day if need be. and we do. every day there
is an active discussion/vote to add, change and remove tags. how is
this non-evolving?

>  The final minute of the above video for me is the important point. An
>  expert, whether it is on tags or anything else, has a high degree of
>  knowledge about the subject, but that is not the only knowledge. Any
>  knowledge, whether from an expert of not is knowledge gained about the
>  subject and has relevance. This is why I think the original wikipedia

absolutely. there is no barrier to joining a discussion. no-one
looking at a tag discussion with a good idea would think ulf, alex, me
or anyone had some higher power. we're very careful on this, and are
aware and promote that every opinion is as valued as another. has
anyone ever said "i've been doing this for x months, i know more than
you, your opinion is worhtless?" not that i can see

>  approach was fine, provided that it would never be considered authoritative.
>  If you want an "authoritative" version, in the same way that the
>  Encyclopaedia Britannica or OED might be considered authoritative, then
>  fine, make your rules and produce your work to standards, each individual
>  then has the option to consider these alongside any other sources of
>  information when making a decision or taking a view about something.
>
>  If we turn this point to OSM we can see that if the community pools its
>  ideas on a point, tags in this instance, then we reach through discussion on
>  the lists/IRC wiki etc a level of general consensus about a tag, it is
>  immaterial whether the consensus reached is right or wrong in the wider
>  context. It's what the community feels is appropriate at the time. The
>  problem comes along only if a subset of the community decide to "approve"
>  the consensus and cast it in stone as an immovable statement. Doing so stops
>  further revision of the community consensus, and thus in my view makes it
>  less authoritative with time.

no it doesn't - anyone can propose changing a tag at a later date.
e.g. i put forward  a proposal to merge cemeteries and graveyards,
someone explained why they were different (showing good sources to
back up their argument), and i retracted it. there is also a proposal
in place to delete sport=football which will probably go through. when
it was created it made sense, now it doesn't - a prime example of
evolution

voting by itself does not give me any confidence that the tags are
'approved' or useful or whatever. but people use them, a lot, which
gives me confidence that they see value in the tags, and thus how they
are created

i don't know the exact numbers, but having looked through tagwatch,
most items are tagged with things in map_features. why would people
use them if they had no value? this tells me we're doing some

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Paul Hurley]

Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:

>Frederik Ramm wrote:
>  
>
>> 
>>
>>I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my
>>suggestion:
>>
>>* Continue your discussion and voting as before
>>
>>* Give yourselves a name ("OSM Tagging Task Force" or whatever) and
>>create a mailing list.
>>
>>* Do not talk about "approved", "rejected", or "deprecated" features;
>>instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a "recommended by
>>OSMTTF" feature.
>>snip>
>>
>>
>I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most
>know that I'm an advocate of the "let it evolve" approach.
>  
>


As a OSM Newbie, this seems like one of those old timer arguments you 
see in the back of the pub, where everyone involved knows their point of 
view, and everyone elese point of view, and knows no-one will change, 
but discusses anyway for old time sake.  Normally I stay away from those 
discussions, but this time I'll wade in (to knowing glances between the 
old timers, I'm sure...)

I like the way that new tags can be written up on the wiki, and then any 
users can show their feelings on them.  I think it's quite clear from 
the wiki that you don't have to use 'approved' tags, or that the 
approval is set in stone (it's a wiki after all), but I think it helps 
new user to see how new tags are being thought of by everyone, and for 
people with an idea to document their idea and show it to the world.  
Without something like this you will get fifty different types of subtly 
different tags.  I see the proposal / voting / approval process as 
something to do with the documentation on the wiki, and not nessarily to 
do with the map.

Maybe what's required is getting more users to look at the proposals and 
give their opinion (maybe putting the latest proposal thats being voted 
on on the front page ?)

Just my two penneth,

Paul.

-- 
Paul Hurley http://www.paulhurley.co.uk/
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Dave Stubbs]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/9 Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > > maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting
>  > > > our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
>  > > > decide who's in power.
>
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan
>  >  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>  >  >  > Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
>  >  >  > election) ?
>  >  >
>  >  >  I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for 
> your
>  >  >  local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime
>  >  >  Minister.
>  >
>  >  Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by
>  >  convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence
>  >  of parliament. There's nothing other than "constitutional convention"
>  >  to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not,
>  >  and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention seems
>  >  quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or
>  >  where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect,
>  >  which was kind of Steve's point.
>
>  well, if we're being really, really pedantic, then i wasn't talking
>  about that government, but the one here (nz), where there are no damn
>  monarchs choosing leaders, [...]

really? wikipedia isn't so convinced: 'The post of Prime Minister is,
like other ministerial positions, an appointment by the
Governor-General "during the Queen's pleasure"' [1]
Convention means this isn't really true, as it does in the UK. Quite
what happens if you break convention I don't know. Probably a
Constitutional Crisis.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_New_Zealand

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 08 April 2008 2:31 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: OSM-Talk
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
>
>Sven,
>
>> I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.
>
>Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the
>matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make
>a decision that is "a decision of the project" rather than "a decision
>of those five people who voted".
>
>I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my
>suggestion:
>
>* Continue your discussion and voting as before
>
>* Give yourselves a name ("OSM Tagging Task Force" or whatever) and
>create a mailing list.
>
>* Do not talk about "approved", "rejected", or "deprecated" features;
>instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a "recommended by
>OSMTTF" feature.
>
>* Be very clear that any feature *not* voted upon, or any feature which
>got less votes than something else, or any feature that a majority of
>voters didn't like, is still perfectly valid to use - you just don't
>actively recommend it.
>
>* Never try to keep people from using tags you didn't recommend (i.e. do
>not add a big message to the Wiki saying "THIS FEATURE IS NOT
>RECOMMENDED!").
>
>* Be very clear that the group you form is a small subset of the
>project; you create recommendations based on today's knowledge and on
>what you like and dislike. There may be any number of *other* groups in
>the project who also create recommendations and who have the same right
>to exist that you have. You are not special, the project has not asked
>you to please give recommendations, and has not given you any special
>powers that others don't have. (Much as the project never asks anyone to
>please write software and be the project's premier software contributor
>- anyone can do it and if it proves to be good, it is used.)
>
>* Be very clear that your recommendations create no obligations
>whatsoever on the part of renderers and editors; your tags are not
>better or more important than anyone else's.
>
>Do all this and I will stop complaining. I might even actively refer
>people to you ("better talk this over with the guys on the tagging task
>force list, they usually have good ideas" or so).
>
>> Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set
>> up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent
>> tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project
>> is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do?
>
>I'll draw a parallel to the licensing debate here. Over on legal-talk, I
>constantly advocate PD, saying that nothing can ever be more "free" than
>PD because it has no restrictions. I am then routinely criticised by
>share-alike advocates who say that the freedom of PD might be abused by
>people further down the line to actually *reduce* freedom.
>
>In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open,
>and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness
>by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you
>want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent
>discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from.
>
>Bye
>Frederik
>


I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most
know that I'm an advocate of the "let it evolve" approach.

SteveC pointed me last night to this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WMSinyx_Ab0
If you haven't seen it already its principally discussing the arguments and
issues surrounding wikipedia and whether it can stand for truth or not.

OSM basically has the same dilemma. There will always be those that think
the prescribed approach, and this applies beyond tags too, is the only way
the project will be considered authoritative and therefore in the longer
term useful/successful. I don't hold this view, and this is why.

Like another poster I too use international standards in my life as an
engineer. But daily I come across poorly conceived standards and differences
in interpretation, usage and supposedly equivalent standards in different
jurisdictions. I also see standards having to change with time and that
these changes don't usually keep pace with technological developments or new
research and best practice. 

The final minute of the above video for me is the important point. An
expert, whether it is on tags or anything else, has a high degree of
knowledge about the subject, but that is not the only knowledge. Any
knowledge, whether from an expert of 

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[SteveC]

On 9 Apr 2008, at 12:37, Robin Paulson wrote:
> 2008/4/9 Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all  
 wasting
 our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
 decide who's in power.
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
 Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown  
 (no
 election) ?
>>>
>>> I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote  
>>> for your
>>> local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be  
>>> Prime
>>> Minister.
>>
>> Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by
>> convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence
>> of parliament. There's nothing other than "constitutional convention"
>> to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not,
>> and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention  
>> seems
>> quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or
>> where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect,
>> which was kind of Steve's point.
>
> well, if we're being really, really pedantic, then i wasn't talking
> about that government, but the one here (nz), where there are no damn
> monarchs choosing leaders, and no hanging chads or cheating governors
> to screw things up:

oh must be perfect over there then! :-)

>
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
>
> so my point stands
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

Best

Steve


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Robin Paulson]

2008/4/9 Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting
> > > our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
> > > decide who's in power.
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>  >  > Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
>  >  > election) ?
>  >
>  >  I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your
>  >  local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime
>  >  Minister.
>
>  Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by
>  convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence
>  of parliament. There's nothing other than "constitutional convention"
>  to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not,
>  and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention seems
>  quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or
>  where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect,
>  which was kind of Steve's point.

well, if we're being really, really pedantic, then i wasn't talking
about that government, but the one here (nz), where there are no damn
monarchs choosing leaders, and no hanging chads or cheating governors
to screw things up:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

so my point stands

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Dave Stubbs]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
>  > Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
>  > election) ?
>
>  I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your
>  local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime
>  Minister.

Well, if we're being pedantic then the Queen appoints the PM, and by
convention she chooses the person most likely to have the confidence
of parliament. There's nothing other than "constitutional convention"
to stop her picking anyone she likes, whether they're an MP or not,
and whether parliament likes it or not -- luckily the convention seems
quite strong. So all in all, there's not much voting going on, or
where there is it isn't necessarily treated in the way you'd expect,
which was kind of Steve's point.

But anyway. Both e-mails are evidence of why charging people for
completely pointless posts that don't actually do anything for the
point under discussion is probably a good idea :-)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Stephen Gower]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:31:02AM +0100, Bruce Cowan wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
> > Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no  
> > election) ?
> 
> I'm a pedant [...]

  Oh, if we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that the British
  convention is that he's "The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown" or "Mr
  Brown" or "Prime Minister" (as in, "Yes, Prime Minister"), but not
  any variation on the American "Prime Minister Brown" or "Mr Prime
  Minister" formats. 

  Sorry, off topic and I managed to resist for a couple of days, but
  it's just one of those niggly things.  And as for Chef Ramsey, he
  can f*** right off.
  
  s

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Ulf Lamping]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
>> Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several 
>> times.
> This is not the first time you use the word "sabotage" in this 
> context. I think it's rather strong language; I have openly expressed 
> my opinion that's all.
I just use the wording that I think is appropriate for an IMHO absurd 
discussion.
>> Did you noticed the side effect, that most of the discussion about 
>> the proposals almost stopped completely
> No I haven't noticed. 
Hmmm, because you don't seem to care/know what's happening in that area?
> I guess it's because summer's coming and people are out mapping.
>> sabotaging an actually working voting process to more or less quickly 
>> find decisions about how to improve stuff
> Well I think what may have happened is that I shattered an illusion. 
> It is just possible that people participating in the voting process 
> were under the impression that their decisions are somehow more than 
> recommendations, that they divide the OSM world into "approved" and 
> "not approved" stuff and that they define what people will use or not 
> use. 
I'm sorry, but this is YOUR illusion, not my point of view (and as far 
as I can tell none of the other "voting participants").

Maybe beside that the map features page in fact defines a lot how people 
actually map things (to the limit that this page still lacks a lot of 
stuff).
> I said that this is not the case, and maybe this has reduced 
> motivation to participate in the process. But honestly, how can you 
> ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in 
> the project can have any authority? "Well, all those mappers who don't 
> use the opportunity to present, discuss and defend their views here 
> will simply have to live with our decision"? Come on!
Again, your expressing an illusion that you have about the voting 
process that just doesn't fit with reality. You obviously don't follow 
the dynamics of the proposal and voting stuff, but opposing it maybe 
because you just missinterpreting stuff and don't like the wording.

The whole voting - at least to me - is: "let's find a reasonable 
solution for this open point, so we can move on to the next". This has a 
lot more to do with "rough consensus and running code" than you seem to 
think.

Regards, ULFL


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Bruce Cowan]

On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
> Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no  
> election) ?

I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your
local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime
Minister.
-- 
Bruce Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Nigel Magnay]

I haven't been paying too much attention of late, but it's always
struck me that the simple solution to tagging is to allow tags to
exist within namespaces (akin, say, to XML namespaces).

That way, if you want to have one group going around having votes on
things, they can, and they can have their own sandbox to play in. They
could then have core:railway=station [1], and I could have
nrm:conkers=many [2], and everyone carries on. No need to get
'permission', but groups that _really care_ about, say, dataset
quality, can look up tags in "their" namespace and 'correct' them.

Good features to have would be the ability to subsume tags into a
namespace (hey, your nrm:conkers=many is my core:tree=chestnut, so
lets merge, or "Ive tagged every boatyard in the UK, I think it's
useful, would you like it in the boating database?), and possibly even
being able to clone / branch a namespace (e.g. I disagree with the
cabal running core:, so I'd like to have mycore: based on the tag set
as of xx/yy/, and I shall continue from there).

Because it seems to me that both sides are right. The people wanting
some kind of process are right because in order for some kinds of tags
to be useful needs some kind of consistency. And the people wanting
the freedom are also right - 'cos voting is cumbersome and I wanna
just Get On With It, and "who elected those guys over there anyway".
It's just the same as an OSS project - if you disagree, you can take
the branch and go off on your own.

[1] where, say, core=http://openstreetmap/tagset/core, or
core=http://openstreetmap/the-tagging-foundation/tagset/core, or
whatever
[2] and perhaps nrm=http://openstreetmap/users/magnayn

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven,
>
>
>  > I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.
>
>  Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the
>  matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make
>  a decision that is "a decision of the project" rather than "a decision
>  of those five people who voted".
>
>  I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my
>  suggestion:
>
>  * Continue your discussion and voting as before
>
>  * Give yourselves a name ("OSM Tagging Task Force" or whatever) and
>  create a mailing list.
>
>  * Do not talk about "approved", "rejected", or "deprecated" features;
>  instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a "recommended by
>  OSMTTF" feature.
>
>  * Be very clear that any feature *not* voted upon, or any feature which
>  got less votes than something else, or any feature that a majority of
>  voters didn't like, is still perfectly valid to use - you just don't
>  actively recommend it.
>
>  * Never try to keep people from using tags you didn't recommend (i.e. do
>  not add a big message to the Wiki saying "THIS FEATURE IS NOT
>  RECOMMENDED!").
>
>  * Be very clear that the group you form is a small subset of the
>  project; you create recommendations based on today's knowledge and on
>  what you like and dislike. There may be any number of *other* groups in
>  the project who also create recommendations and who have the same right
>  to exist that you have. You are not special, the project has not asked
>  you to please give recommendations, and has not given you any special
>  powers that others don't have. (Much as the project never asks anyone to
>  please write software and be the project's premier software contributor
>  - anyone can do it and if it proves to be good, it is used.)
>
>  * Be very clear that your recommendations create no obligations
>  whatsoever on the part of renderers and editors; your tags are not
>  better or more important than anyone else's.
>
>  Do all this and I will stop complaining. I might even actively refer
>  people to you ("better talk this over with the guys on the tagging task
>  force list, they usually have good ideas" or so).
>
>
>  > Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set
>  > up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent
>  > tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project
>  > is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do?
>
>  I'll draw a parallel to the licensing debate here. Over on legal-talk, I
>  constantly advocate PD, saying that nothing can ever be more "free" than
>  PD because it has no restrictions. I am then routinely criticised by
>  share-alike advocates who say that the freedom of PD might be abused by
>  people further down the line to actually *reduce* freedom.
>
>  In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open,
>  and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness
>  by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you
>  want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent
>  discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from.
>
>  Bye
>  Frederik
>

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Paul Hurley]

Sven Grüner wrote:


Frederik Ramm schrieb:
 

I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my 
suggestion:


* [...]
   



Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't.
While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force 
it's no good idea I believe. That would inevitably become a "closed" 
group at that others would point their fingers saying "It's all their 
fault". In contrast our current system is truly open: Anybody can drop 
by in the wiki write one or two lines to a proposal and leave again.


 

In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, 
and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness 
by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you 
want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent 
discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from.
   



Naturally I can only speak for myself but I'm almost certain this 
applies to others as well: I don't want to allow or disallow anything! 
When I spent time with proposals I consider that a service to others. 
Those others are free to chose wether they want to use my service of 
neatly structured and described tags or not.


I'm a mechanical engineer and see on a daily basis how industrial norms 
like ISO, DIN, etc. make things easier by allowing you to concentrate on 
your core business rather than worrying if other people will now what I 
mean by a M6x40 bolt. Take ISO 5457 for example: You are free to use 
whatever paperformat you like but isn't it also comfortable to walk into 
any shop and ask for DIN A4 paper sheets, that every printer and every 
desktop application will know what you mean without the need to say that 
it's a piece of paper with the dimensions 210x297mm?
Even when there are several competing norms that's fine as long each one 
clearly defines it's meaning and one knows which one applies.


There are of course laws and alike which enforce people to meet such 
norms but it's false to blame the resulting hassle on those who created 
the norm.
So we should try to scatter the illusion that tags as they can be found 
in the wiki are obligatory in any kind. I'll be glad to do so when you 
point me to such places.


regards, Sven

 


+1

Paul.

--
Paul Hurley http://www.paulhurley.co.uk/
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
   Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Sven Grüner]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my 
> suggestion:
> 
> * [...]

Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't.
While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force 
it's no good idea I believe. That would inevitably become a "closed" 
group at that others would point their fingers saying "It's all their 
fault". In contrast our current system is truly open: Anybody can drop 
by in the wiki write one or two lines to a proposal and leave again.

> In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, 
> and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness 
> by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you 
> want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent 
> discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from.

Naturally I can only speak for myself but I'm almost certain this 
applies to others as well: I don't want to allow or disallow anything! 
When I spent time with proposals I consider that a service to others. 
Those others are free to chose wether they want to use my service of 
neatly structured and described tags or not.

I'm a mechanical engineer and see on a daily basis how industrial norms 
like ISO, DIN, etc. make things easier by allowing you to concentrate on 
your core business rather than worrying if other people will now what I 
mean by a M6x40 bolt. Take ISO 5457 for example: You are free to use 
whatever paperformat you like but isn't it also comfortable to walk into 
any shop and ask for DIN A4 paper sheets, that every printer and every 
desktop application will know what you mean without the need to say that 
it's a piece of paper with the dimensions 210x297mm?
Even when there are several competing norms that's fine as long each one 
clearly defines it's meaning and one knows which one applies.

There are of course laws and alike which enforce people to meet such 
norms but it's false to blame the resulting hassle on those who created 
the norm.
So we should try to scatter the illusion that tags as they can be found 
in the wiki are obligatory in any kind. I'll be glad to do so when you 
point me to such places.

regards, Sven

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Frederik Ramm]

Sven,

> I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.

Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the 
matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make 
a decision that is "a decision of the project" rather than "a decision 
of those five people who voted".

I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my 
suggestion:

* Continue your discussion and voting as before

* Give yourselves a name ("OSM Tagging Task Force" or whatever) and 
create a mailing list.

* Do not talk about "approved", "rejected", or "deprecated" features; 
instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a "recommended by 
OSMTTF" feature.

* Be very clear that any feature *not* voted upon, or any feature which
got less votes than something else, or any feature that a majority of 
voters didn't like, is still perfectly valid to use - you just don't 
actively recommend it.

* Never try to keep people from using tags you didn't recommend (i.e. do 
not add a big message to the Wiki saying "THIS FEATURE IS NOT 
RECOMMENDED!").

* Be very clear that the group you form is a small subset of the 
project; you create recommendations based on today's knowledge and on 
what you like and dislike. There may be any number of *other* groups in 
the project who also create recommendations and who have the same right 
to exist that you have. You are not special, the project has not asked 
you to please give recommendations, and has not given you any special 
powers that others don't have. (Much as the project never asks anyone to 
please write software and be the project's premier software contributor 
- anyone can do it and if it proves to be good, it is used.)

* Be very clear that your recommendations create no obligations 
whatsoever on the part of renderers and editors; your tags are not 
better or more important than anyone else's.

Do all this and I will stop complaining. I might even actively refer 
people to you ("better talk this over with the guys on the tagging task 
force list, they usually have good ideas" or so).

> Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set 
> up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent 
> tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project 
> is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do?

I'll draw a parallel to the licensing debate here. Over on legal-talk, I 
constantly advocate PD, saying that nothing can ever be more "free" than 
PD because it has no restrictions. I am then routinely criticised by 
share-alike advocates who say that the freedom of PD might be abused by 
people further down the line to actually *reduce* freedom.

In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, 
and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness 
by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you 
want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent 
discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from.

Bye
Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Sven Grüner]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> But honestly, how can you  
> ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in  
> the project can have any authority?

I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.

I also can't remember that anyone in this discussion has given any 
reason or example where the voting-process could harm the OSM-project. 
On the contrary, there are many Newbies who are thankful there's ONE 
tagging-sheme for one feature instead of several contrary opinions on 
what could be bad and good.

Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set 
up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent 
tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project 
is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do?

regards, Sven

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several  
> times.

This is not the first time you use the word "sabotage" in this  
context. I think it's rather strong language; I have openly expressed  
my opinion that's all.

> Did you noticed the side effect, that most of the discussion about  
> the proposals almost stopped completely

No I haven't noticed. I guess it's because summer's coming and people  
are out mapping.

> sabotaging an actually working voting process to more or less  
> quickly find decisions about how to improve stuff

Well I think what may have happened is that I shattered an illusion.  
It is just possible that people participating in the voting process  
were under the impression that their decisions are somehow more than  
recommendations, that they divide the OSM world into "approved" and  
"not approved" stuff and that they define what people will use or not  
use. I said that this is not the case, and maybe this has reduced  
motivation to participate in the process. But honestly, how can you  
ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in  
the project can have any authority? "Well, all those mappers who  
don't use the opportunity to present, discuss and defend their views  
here will simply have to live with our decision"? Come on!

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Ulf Lamping]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
>
>  stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet  
> architecture fame) today. He said:
>
> "We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough  
> consensus and running code."
>
> Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not  
> the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes  
> are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-)
>   
Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several 
times. Did you noticed the side effect, that most of the discussion 
about the proposals almost stopped completely - leading up to almost NO 
IMPROVEMENTS to the mess of proposals we have. This will certainly help 
everyone a lot, thank you!


Just ignoring the current mess we have in the map features caused in the 
years past (e.g. no one seemed to care about documenting the features - 
leading to a LOT OF confusion), sabotaging an actually working voting 
process to more or less quickly find decisions about how to improve 
stuff and NOT providing a better way of improving the current situation 
is, well, strange.

You're queueing up to the long list of people just telling us how to not 
do things, but you also know that we already have enough of those people ...

Regards, ULFL


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[paul youlten]

...or as Ken Livingstone said: "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it."


On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:57 AM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote:
> > 2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
> >> architecture fame) today. He said:
> >>
> >> "We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
> >> consensus and running code."
> >
> > maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting
> > our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
> > decide who's in power.
>
> Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
> election) ?
>
>
> >
> >
> > did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic
> > sound bite?
> >
> >> Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not
> >> the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes
> >> are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-)
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[SteveC]

On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote:
> 2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
>> architecture fame) today. He said:
>>
>> "We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
>> consensus and running code."
>
> maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting
> our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
> decide who's in power.

Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no  
election) ?

>
>
> did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic  
> sound bite?
>
>> Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not
>> the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes
>> are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-)
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

Best

Steve


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voting

[Robin Paulson]

2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
>  architecture fame) today. He said:
>
>  "We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
>  consensus and running code."

maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting
our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
decide who's in power.

did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite?

>  Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not
>  the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes
>  are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voting

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

 stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet  
architecture fame) today. He said:

"We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough  
consensus and running code."

Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not  
the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes  
are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting closed/proposal rejected - hov access

[Robin Paulson]

voting has been open on this for 4 weeks. it has now closed, with 4
yes votes, and 1 no vote - the proposal was rejected

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/hov_access

it will be moved to the rejected features page

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting closed/proposal approved - aussie rules

[Robin Paulson]

voting on this proposal has now closed, it has been approved with 6
yes votes and 0 no votes

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Australian_rules_football

it will be moved to the approved features and map features page

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting open - naval_base

[Robin Paulson]

this has been open for two weeks with no unanswered objections

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/naval_base

voting is now open

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting closed - shooting range

[Robin Paulson]

this proposal has closed with 10 yes votes and 1 no vote

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting

it will be reviewed and re-opened for RFC with amended tags

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [voting] shop=laundry

[Ulf Lamping]

Hi!

The corresponding RFC is now more than two weeks ago, with no 
substantial problems shown up (since it was updated 2007-12-31).

Voting is opened for the next two weeks at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Laundry

Regards, ULFL


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting open - chalets

[Robin Paulson]

this is 5 month sold now, with no objections

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/chalets

voting is now open

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting open - power_plant

[Robin Paulson]

this has been around for 8 months now, time to open voting

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Power_plants

this proposal has two parts: to create the new power=power_plants tag
and make the old man_made=nuclear_power, man_made=solar_power, etc.
obsolete

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] voting open - railway=turntable

[Karl Eichwalder]

> voting is now open, for two weeks

This is not an announce list.

> Thanks.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting open for url= and

[Sven Grüner]

Already trying to avoid unneccesary mails I herewith inform you about
open voting for two tags:

Links to websites (url=)


Official phonenumbers (phone=)


Regards, Sven

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting open - railway=turntable

[Robin Paulson]

this has been open for comments for two weeks now, with no issues

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Turntable

voting is now open, for two weeks

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting closed, re-opened - pumping rig

[Robin Paulson]

this proposal was put together too quickly, without real thought of
the tag name, so i've modified the proposal and re-opened voting

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/rig

hopefully this fits better - if it is still no good, please suggest
alternatives in your vote

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] voting closed, proposal rejected - saltmarsh

[Robin Paulson]

this proposal has been open for voting for two weeks now. it has been
rejected, with 6 no votes and 3 yes votes

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Saltmarsh

it will be moved to the rejected features page

i will put together a new proposal for sub-keys to the 'marsh' tag, as
per suggestions in the comments

thanks

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population

[Martin Trautmann]

In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On 2008-01-17 01:23, Tony Bowden wrote:
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>> precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}>
>>
>> Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
>> but you won't know whether this number is outdated by a day, a month or
>> many years.
>
> Both of these seem to be unnecessarily overcomplicating the issue.

Yes, I agree. It sounds far too complicated.

Concerning KISS, someone should add some info to the proposal whether you
are aware that any numbers here are not for exact reference then, but just
for giving a possibly outdated and rough estimation of size.

> AIUI there is no proposal to be doing anything with this data other than
> giving rendering hints. If so, then there's no real problem with either
> out of date data or crude estimates. And, when better data is available,
> it's trivial to change it.

Is it a sufficient key for rendering?

Whether something got the status of a town or not may differ from country
to country.

In Germany, you may change the status from about 5000 inhabitants on
("small town", Kleinstadt: 5 000 .. 20 000). From 100 000 on it's called
Großstadt (city). In Switzerland it takes at least 10 000 inhabitants for a 
town, in Austria
it may be as low as 4500. Once you got the status of a town, you might
keep it. There's a German town named Arnis, which got about 300
inhabitants only.

So maybe the number of inhabitants is the even better value for rendering
- but the result may be different than your expectation is.


- Martin
-- 
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] voting ended? - population

[David James]

On Wed, January 16, 2008 10:47 am, David Earl wrote:
> Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
> it for all places in my area for some time now - over 100 villages in South
> Cambridgeshire are tagged.

At the risk of taking this off-topic, can I ask where you are getting this
data from (for the UK)?

-- 
David James



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk