On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:46 AM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Its interesting to note that most 'no' were concerned it is a tourism > only tag despite that issue being discussed (and resolved ??) on this > list. > For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss a few important steps. Right now it is something like A need for a new tag is determined. A group of people discusses a tag. They find a comprise, document it, start voting. But then it seems that other people don't like the tag. What went wrong ? - The proposing group didn't consider all possibilities ? - The documentation didn't make it clear why certain choices were made ? - The external group did not properly read the proposal ? - The proposing group made the wrong choice after all ? ... why not keep the proposal open for a longer period, let people use it. Perhaps by using it the no-voters will see the reason for amenity (in this case) or maybe they see that it is a useful well-defined tag or ... On the other hand, by actually using the tag new values may be found, the proposing group might want to tweak the definition to better fit cases they didn't think of, ... Then, only after several months of usage (watch taginfo), start voting to make it an "official" tag. (note the quotes, there is no such thing as an official tag). But only when it has been used sufficiently Why would you want to rush the definition of a new tag in 1 month or so from defining a need to approved tag ? Is there any reason for that ? regards m
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
