-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > This means that by any traditional reading, the proposal has been > rejected, even though you seem to avoid the word.
I am not avoiding anything, I am simply stating facts. And as a matter of fact, there are 19 positive votes, 18 negative ones, and one partial approval. By any mathematical reading, 19 > 18. > I don't see why the onus should be on those who voted against the > proposal. I could also say that those who voted for the proposal > need to work on it to make it more acceptable. For those who voted for the proposal it is already acceptable. But exactly as I stated before, the desires of the those opposing the proposal go in opposite directions, and since a proposal cannot be changed in both suggested directions simultaneously, this needs to be clarified. And this can only be done by those who have an actual desire which contradicts the proposal in its current form. > That's a great idea, we simply get rid of the "rejected" status > and anything that is not accepted remains in "proposed" forever ;) This is not a discussion about the "rejected" status in general. If there is a majority against a proposal and the creator buries it, of course he can do so. But if there are 1. 50% positive votes and 2. those who opposed the proposal indicate in their comments, that the reason for this was the single aspect of deprecating a high-use tag, there is more than enough justification to continue working on the proposal. > Of course this opens the question - what if someone wanted to > propose a *different* tagging of lamps, should they then overwrite > the page with their proposal or should we simply have a ton of > proposals in parallel? Of course anyone is free to propose whatever he wants to, including a different tagging of lamps, or to work on and improve an existing proposal. So am I. > i.e. the proposal has been rejected. As stated above, there are more positive than negative votes. > the question for the last point was not, whether this should all > be tagged with different tags, but that you apparently want to map > light fixtures and have chosen the wrong word for it (lamp). This is your opinion, but not even native speakers share this opinion. Let me remind you that the current tag is street_lamp, not street_light, and one may ask for the reason for this outcome. > they could (and here I am), but they do not "need to". It is up to > who wants change to convince the rest, not the other way round. I have no intention to convince anyone to do anything. My intention is and always has been to propose a new tagging scheme, in other words, to develop such a scheme and to offer it to mappers who wish to use it. Who decides to use it and who decides not to use it is beyond my intention. > you can always do that, but your proceeding doesn't look very > logical then: usually you start a proposal and voting in order to > find problems with the suggested tags, and if a proposal voting > doesn't show a good majority it usually indicates that it was > either poorly drafted or has some other serious problems e.g. with > the proposed tags. In this case I wouldn't continue using these > tags as if nothing happened. This is exactly what I have done. There has been a long discussion about these tags in the OSM forum, many suggestions have been made and included into the proposal, and as many positive comments from the same forum discussion indicate, they have lead to significant improvements of the proposal. Getting opinions on this proposed tagging, improving it and making it visible to the community, who can then use it or not, was my motivation for creating a proposal. Besides, I have nowhere indicated that I would proceed "as if nothing happened". > lamp mapping or lights mapping? Whatever you want to call them. > I don't understand this, could you explain? No. But as a hint, tagging practice by a large number of mappers has usually more influence on tag usages than the status of proposals. > IMHO you should start a new proposal and set the current one to > "rejected", because that's what it is. Two times actually. If you read carefully, you will find that the first voting was not even completed, but interrupted by myself after receiving 6 positive votes in the first two days. The reason was that there were some suggested improvements that I included into the proposal. And as I already stated before, the second voting received 50% of positive votes. And again, as I wrote before, comments indicate that for most people the only reason to oppose was the deprecation of a high-use tag, and this (and again further positive comments in the forum) justifies continued work on this proposal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSk7n9AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyvd4H/j62YFJvg1/6VK+UAfQnNBW7 wSVNdnIMD08Vp3mIFLNl8+psLzmOW45UcNffYmAIpGSiwWnt3jeuW+PykEjTFY74 0KJExajBS9OtIuQx++kwsb3EVv/8hHqM+DvpXkD+K+MDdMjo5Z3vDVGmWGeFnf5T XgcSSvhO6TmAnmSAVBu/c/G86NnVpjshlL2ixknTqUZdJdcVqx5OIC88EXzg5v5z t4bqan/liSETcO2Hq/Vt4F4Jmc4BCfZ+b962didongFjCcV2X0WOaW4omOggoU/2 K0M7qeye9pnlz9Ku/G/0nLnoqKqckiuwVv6I0SHTRVuOUxFNjQQcu3ZJS5EKQ1g= =GUl2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
