Dear all,
If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing,
it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails,
disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We
develop, over years, one set of tags like
highway=footway/cycleway/bridlew
2009/8/10 Tom Chance :
> out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at
> SOTM 2010, ...
>
> Does this sound workable?
it surely doesn't speed up things ;-)
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://l
Hi!
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
> 2009/8/10 Tom Chance :
>> out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at
>> SOTM 2010, ...
>>
>> Does this sound workable?
>
> it surely doesn't speed up things ;-)
It does. Any speed is faster than going in circles. :-)
bye
I hope it were faster than annually at SOTM and that the voting be more
participatory since not everyone involved can be at SOTM.
But anyway, I like the idea of working groups to handle individual schema
upgrades.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Tom Chance wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> If the wood
--- On Mon, 10/8/09, Tom Chance wrote:
> Does this sound workable?
I agree in principal, however if a vote is only conducted in person at the SOTM
events it penalises everyone unable to attend.
If you are going to the trouble to create a working group to nut out complex
issues they should mo
How do you select the people in the working group? You might have dozens of
people interested to do some work, so who would choose the "lucky ones", and
how would it be done without dropping into some popularity contest? Or would
you allow competing working groups working on the same problem? W
All good questions. As you say, the current situation is really far from
optimal, it's just a matter of finding the right process for occasions where we
need to make a big change like scrapping a bunch of existing tags in favour of
a more logical alternative.
On Monday 10 Aug 2009 17:29:50 Ben
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
> Membership
> of the Foundation should be the basis for participating in these decisions.
> Each vote would need at least 60% of members to vote, and proposals would
> need
> a majority of say 60% in favour to pass. Perhaps to speed things up th
2009/8/11 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> If there is any going to be decision-making on the project as a whole
> especially on the OSM data, please don't require OSMF membership and SOTM
> appearance. Many people can't afford to join OSMF (think of people in
> developing countries who can't afford the £1
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
OSMF is not the right place to decide tagging rules:
"Members of the Foundation are entitled to vote in the affairs of the
Foundation. They have no special say in how the OpenStreetMap project
is run, just the running of the Foundation."
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pieren wrote:
> If you see different interpretations
> of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the
> description on the wiki, first.
+1
I'd also recommend that if there are several different definitions of
a tag currently in use, they should
Hello Tom,
>So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work
>out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at
>SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that
>probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring thing
Hi,
I am a mapper who would be happy to have some kind of governance
process to the dispute of tags or acceptance of them.
As has been mentioned membership of OSMF and participation of SOTM
should not be factors, however we are all quite technically literate
so why note have IRC meetings every qu
Tom Chance wrote:
> - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
> proposal to small working groups
> - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
> proposal for new tags, depr
On 10/08/09 15:49, Tom Chance wrote:
> - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
> proposal to small working groups
> - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
> proposal
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Gervase Markham wrote:
> (in the canal example,
> UK canals and European ones are different in a few important ways)
and the canals in my area are very different again - not used for navigation
at all
so i'd need to be able to join in - but would you know that I have a differ
On 11/08/2009, at 12:49 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags,
> defer the
> proposal to small working groups
This sounds good, but deciding the makeup of a working group is likely
to be an issue. If you allow anyone to join, then your working g
I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of the
OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part. (I wont joint
the osmf while it has links with paypal)
The working group would have to produce a report, and be able to show they
had considered all input. The reco
2009/8/11 Roy Wallace :
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pieren wrote:
>> If you see different interpretations
>> of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the
>> description on the wiki, first.
>
> +1
>
> I'd also recommend that if there are several different definitions of
>
2009/8/11 Martin Koppenhoefer
> actually I prefer Pieren's approach (if I got it right) of trying to
> establish _one_ definition instead of having several contradictory
> ones, where in the end it is not clear anymore, which meaning a
> certain tag is intended for. To solve the actual "chaos" in
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:35:52 +1000, James Livingston
wrote:
>> - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote
>
> As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who
> can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more
> than a certain number of pe
On 11/08/2009, at 11:27 PM, Tom Chance wrote:
> The principal reason for suggesting SOTM is that - in my many years of
> experience with these matters - it's incredibly hard to sensibly
> discuss
> complex matters online. With a good facilitator and a well defined
> process
> of preparation, y
Hi!
Jason Cunningham schrieb:
> I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of
> the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part.
+1
Absolutely.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
htt
Hi!
James Livingston schrieb:
>> - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote
>
> As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who
> can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more
> than a certain number of people involved they need to be
Hi!
Tobias Knerr schrieb:
> Tom Chance wrote:
>> - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
>> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
>> proposal to small working groups
>> - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a comp
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
> You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for
> disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect
> vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring
> a newly established tagging scheme into all
Liz schrieb:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
>> You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for
>> disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect
>> vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring
>> a newly established taggi
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Tom Chance wrote:
>> - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
>> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
>> proposal to small working groups
>> - These working groups study the wider ques
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> There was a discussion on this list about doctors vs. doctor and the
> conclusion was to use doctors, as this was more "natural" for native
> speakers.
>
> I don't regard this as purely chaotic ...
>
> Regards, ULFL
doctors is a contraction of doctor's
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Liz schrieb:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
> >> You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for
> >> disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect
> >> vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > The path proposal could have been successful long ago if
> > applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see
> CycleMap).
> >
>
> It's on the todo list.
> It screws up the stylesheets in horrible ways due to the hundreds of
>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Richard
Mann wrote:
>
> I've picked up Dave's point above, because it's clear that part of the
> "real" problem is that adhoc committees sometimes don't take account of the
> implications for particular data users (and stylesheets may be the most
> complicated data
32 matches
Mail list logo
