At this moment I have three proposals the comment stage (campsite classification, vehicle storage, camping electricity supply) with a very simple purpose: to fill holes in the mapping possibilities for overlanders (people travelling for a long time with their own transport often through developing countries).
Because I was new to the voting process I haven't sent any voting invitation yet. I first wanted to see how the process works. As stated earlier in this trail the discussion prior to the voting is more important than the voting itself. In my case the initial discussion was generally very good. Some outcomes: (1) tags become useful for a much wider audience by a slightly different definition, (2) tags need to be adapted to avoid confusion with an already existing tag with a different meaning, (3) English may be improved (important for me as a not native speaker), (4) a proposed new subtag is not needed because a tag covering the issue already exists. However the discussion also developed into questioning tagging decisions taken long ago that go far beyond the scope of my proposal (for example shop vs. amenity) and may result in people rejecting a targeted proposal because they want to make a very general point. It was also interesting to see that the number of people participating in the discussion is very small compared to the number of people mapping. Apparently tag definition isn't considered important by many. To be honest in the case of the proposal for the reception_desk I got the impression that one voter had collected a lobby of people not necessarily interested in the topic: copy/paste of comments, no prior participation in the discussion. This behaviour wouldn't help the voting process. At the current level of maturity of OSM new tags often start within a special interest group that may have its own data extraction or rendering tools using tags that interest them independent of their status. Later on the tags may be used by more people and show up in general rendering tools I don't think it is good to leave tags in a "floating state" for a long time as it will prevent people from starting to use them. It isn't good either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer it for voting later on. One wants to have as much clarity as possible before using a tag. I would strongly prefer to have a clear definition under what condition a proposal passes. For example what are *significant *negative comments? In summary I doubt if the proposed changes will bring an improvement, but I wonder if we need voting at all, or only the preceding discussion. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:47 AM Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss >> a few important steps. >> > > +1 > The process works well then the proposal itself is refined and improved > through the process. The vote then becomes almost irrelevant. > In general the main weakness I see is lack of real use. Until real > mappers start mapping real things, the true tagging does not emerge. > > Perhaps we could: > Make "trial tagging" for a time, then discuss, then retag everything to > the final scheme. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
