[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I feel that it is important not to automatically fix tags, as this could
> result in a custom render suddenly failing.
Yes, but the same is true when someone manually replaces old tags with
new ones. If you are doing a custom rendering and you don't keep your
styles
Hi,
> > I feel that it is important not to automatically fix tags, as this could
> > result in a custom render suddenly failing.
>
> Sorry just to clarify, I don't think that it is right for OSM to
> automatically fix tags.
I agree, to a point. I would be very unhappy if out of the voting
mechan
>
> I feel that it is important not to automatically fix tags, as this could
> result in a custom render suddenly failing.
>
Sorry just to clarify, I don't think that it is right for OSM to
automatically fix tags.
If an individual user has to tools to automagically fix tags within an
area then th
> I feel that it is important not to automatically fix tags, as this could
> result in a custom render suddenly failing.
>
Sorry just to clarify, I don't think that it is right for OSM to
automatically fix tags.
If an individual user has to tools to automagically fix tags within an
area then tha
> Well, if we're serious about deprecation, then that just means at some
> point
> those tags are no longer rendered or recognized. Flagging those deprecated
> tags with a validator would be a good first step.
>
Isn't this a job for maplint? Once the tags move to a 'soon to be retired'
stage, map
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, feedback of the form "I don't like this proposal
> > because it doesn't cover situation X, but I can neither provide a
> > real-life example of X in the map
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On the other hand, feedback of the form "I don't like this proposal
> because it doesn't cover situation X, but I can neither provide a
> real-life example of X in the map, nor can I design a scheme which deals
> with it" is not helpful.
In the long t
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> And
> we have the situation where someone (like Gerv) proposes a sensible
> set of tags for an area where he clearly has some subject knowledge -
> inland waterways - and where his proposals are being niggled and
> criticised unjustly by people who don't;
To be
2008/3/20, Ulf Lamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dave Stubbs schrieb:
> > I think the problem is the use of the language in regard to the
> > feature itself. A single person approving of a tag is obviously fine,
> > but once a vote happens, and about 10 people approve of it, the tag
> > then becomes a
On 20/03/2008, Ulf Lamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what's the alternative? Having no approval (or call it
> recommendation, or whatever, I don't care) at all and let the current
> mood of one of the developers be the best way to decide things?
What if at the api level tags became as i
Dave Stubbs schrieb:
> I think the problem is the use of the language in regard to the
> feature itself. A single person approving of a tag is obviously fine,
> but once a vote happens, and about 10 people approve of it, the tag
> then becomes an Approved Tag... or at least some people think it
> d
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Grüner wrote:
>
> > I agree with you that some terms in this process might not be optimal,
> > same applies to depricated. But as a non-native speaker I never thought
> > about that and just took these words for what t
Sven Grüner wrote:
> I agree with you that some terms in this process might not be optimal,
> same applies to depricated. But as a non-native speaker I never thought
> about that and just took these words for what they mean in this context.
>
> On the other hand I still see that the word approve
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> There may be a misunderstanding on my part. I always thought that those
> who vote, by using un-qualified terms like "approved" and "not
> approved", somehow feel that their decisions have an authority that in
> the end applies to everone's mapping work, including mine. If
Hi,
> When your tagging is purely based on the discussions that's fine. But
> why are you against voting just because you don't use it?
There may be a misunderstanding on my part. I always thought that
those who vote, by using un-qualified terms like "approved" and "not
approved", somehow fee
Hi,
> In addition to that, IMO it is absolutely required to have a
> recommendation for beginners. And this RECOMMENDATION is all we
> talk about, right? This is what people on the proposed features
> page vote on.
I'm not so sure, I sometimes have the feeling they believe they vote
on wh
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Decisions have to be made every day. But they can be re-decided
> tomorrow if the need arises. As long as nobody thinks that something
> that has been voted upon by 20 out of 20,000 project members is
> somehow above being re-decided tomorrow, that's ok I guess.
That
IMHO, this great project only makes sense if tagging converges to one
logical and clearly defined schema in the end. The whole point of the
project is making one aspect of reality (geography) computer-readable. If
the tagging doesnt converge to a common schema, it is not understandable by
computers
On tagwatch, one idea for these would have been voting features of the form
"mark this usage as error/typo". Of course, that could be extended to
voting for "good" tags too..
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> > 80n
Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> And you are arguing that somebody is trying to
>> decrease other peoples power?
>>
>>
> By sabotaging the voting process he's actively doing so, yes. Very
> certainly not by intention but in effect.
>
Voting through the wiki is just one of several options to e
Hi,
>> I'm all for
>> discussion. I just suggest leaving out the final stage of voting
>> because it has no relevance anyway. I understand if people see a
>> certain merit in a "closed discussion", if people want to "tick off"
>> issues and move on, but that doesn't work for us, at least not in
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Frederik Ramm schrieb:
>> Well. Before there were no vineyards on the map. And the discussion
>> was rather dead. What do you expect me to do, start a vote or just do
>> it in a way that works and gets vineyards on the map
> Well, I'd expect you to start a vote just like anyon
Sebastian Spaeth schrieb:
> Ulf, that is a crap argument. I know Fredrik well enough to say that
> control is the least of his motives.
ACK
> What he is trying to convey is that
> in most cases it just needs somebody to implement it the way we thinks
> is right. And in doing so effectively provide
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Frederik Ramm schrieb:
>> The way we usually do things around here is "those who do the work get
>> to decide how it's done".
> Interestingly, your vineyard example is exactly working that way. YOU
> have decided that you want to have vineyards in the way you like it. YOU
>
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
>> Interestingly, your vineyard example is exactly working that way. YOU
>> have decided that you want to have vineyards in the way you like it. YOU
>> have implemented it into osmarender to be shown on the map. So in effect
>> YOU "control how others do theirs" - by se
Hi,
> Interestingly, your vineyard example is exactly working that way. YOU
> have decided that you want to have vineyards in the way you like it. YOU
> have implemented it into osmarender to be shown on the map. So in effect
> YOU "control how others do theirs" - by setting the "reference"
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> BUT:
>
> The way we usually do things around here is "those who do the work get
> to decide how it's done". You are, and not for the first time, talking
> about how to control what OTHERS do and how they do it (your example
> is not whether you tag in miles or kilometres, b
Hi,
> Of course tagging lives and dies by its usefulness; Map_Features is a
> way of saying "People who have thought hard about the specific problems
> associated with tagging X have discussed it, and decided that this is
> the best way. All the renderers recognise this way. You can do it
> an
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:45:51PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> And there's those who do the work and who don't really care.
It's nice when tagging (mostly because I do it so infrequently these
days) to be able to consult a semi-official list of what to use to
direct the work though.
I haven't r
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> So when a group of 5-15 people on the wiki all vote for a feature and
> "approve" it, it generally means absolutely nothing. Tagging lives and
> dies by it's usefulness, by how much it's used, and by whether anyone
> actually producing an end product decides to use it. So i
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Those who make the decision have no authority anyway. So why not
> > record the rationale without the decision, as it is anybody's free
> > choice to follow them or not.
>
> Then welcome, ever
Hi,
> In a standard open source software project, authority is (roughly) a
> meritocracy. Authority flows to those people who contribute and who
> demonstrate themselves competent.
There's one group of people who like authority, and power, and they
give themselves titles and do elections and vo
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Those who make the decision have no authority anyway. So why not
> record the rationale without the decision, as it is anybody's free
> choice to follow them or not.
Then welcome, everyone, to the world's first anarcho-collaborativist
project.
It's an unusual model you are
Hi,
> No, but it does mean that people don't re-re-visit the same decision
> again and again, because there is a formal way to say "the decision is
> made" and a common place to record the rationale.
Those who make the decision have no authority anyway. So why not
record the rationale without t
Talking as a new comer I haven't experienced any long drawn out tag
approval process, however I would comment that the whole point of OSM is
that you can tag any way you like (or as much as you like).
The main point is that the renderer won't know how to use the odd-ball
tags. So in reality it is
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Even without a mechanism of "approval" people will eventually settle
> > down on a small number of ways of tagging common features. Not having an
> > approval system does not mean people sto
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The database can tell us what _is_, but _is_ does not imply _ought_. We
> can either decide that OSM has no view on _ought_ (and just have a
> free-for-all), or we can take advantage of the accumulated mapping
> expertise of OSM participants and have a
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Even without a mechanism of "approval" people will eventually settle
> down on a small number of ways of tagging common features. Not having an
> approval system does not mean people stop talking.
No, but it does mean that people don't re-re-visit the same decision
again
On Wed, March 19, 2008 17:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> +1 to replacing approval/voting by a good automated mechanism of
> showing what's there. Agreed, the structuring needs to be solved but this
> could be done by editing in the Wiki as a completely separate process that
> does not aim to influence
Hi,
> Having an approved set of tags means that there is ideally 1, but
> certainly a small number of ways of tagging common features, rather
> than
> 15 or 50.
Even without a mechanism of "approval" people will eventually settle
down on a small number of ways of tagging common features. Not
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 1:30:53 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight
Hi,
> If we are thinking of revamping this,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> > 80n and I were just discussing this issue over coffee. We both feel that
> > generating tag lists from planet is a good idea, but to give prominence to
> > them (ranking if you lik
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> 80n and I were just discussing this issue over coffee. We both feel that
> generating tag lists from planet is a good idea, but to give prominence to
> them (ranking if you like) it would be good to have the number of users for
> a particular tag rather than the
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
> >Sent: 19 March 2008 2:25 PM
> >To: Gervase Markham
> >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyw
Dave Stubbs wrote:
>Sent: 19 March 2008 2:25 PM
>To: Gervase Markham
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight
>
>On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Frederik Ra
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Why not ditch the whole notion of "approved" features altogether. It
> > doesn't cut any meat in our community anyway. What does "approved"
> > mean, and who has the right to "approve" somethin
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Why not ditch the whole notion of "approved" features altogether. It
> doesn't cut any meat in our community anyway. What does "approved"
> mean, and who has the right to "approve" something?
Having an approved set of tags means that there is ideally 1, but
certainly a
Hi,
> If we are thinking of revamping this, can I make a request for better
> integration with Tagwatch?
> http://etricceline.de/osm/united-kingdom/index_en.htm
Why not ditch the whole notion of "approved" features altogether. It
doesn't cut any meat in our community anyway. What does "approved
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gervase Markham wrote:
| [I'm afraid this might be a bit of a complaint without a solution, as I
| don't have the necessary wiki skills to fix this. But I hope someone
| else does.]
|
| The admin involved in proposing and approving tags, in terms of th
[I'm afraid this might be a bit of a complaint without a solution, as I
don't have the necessary wiki skills to fix this. But I hope someone
else does.]
The admin involved in proposing and approving tags, in terms of the wiki
changes required, is far too heavyweight. (Note: I'm _not_ complainin
50 matches
Mail list logo
