In exchange for a positive vote I am more than happy to share the links :-)
- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Regards, Jan On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:49 AM David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well ! > > I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voting > altogether. Voting does focus the group and as it has a formal finish > date, might (just might) encourage closure. > > But overall, well said ! > > Incidentally, worth providing a link to proposals when you mention them. > I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, perhaps because there > are so many abandoned ones. > > David > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
