I would like to contribute to this discussion my, maybe subjective, impression that we have an inflation of proposals. Many of them are interesting, others look less so. In any case, personally I have de facto stopped contributing to these proposals for simple lack of time. I also would like to add that too much wiki "gardening" is going on below the radar of most contributors.
My impression is that we are running the real risk that we are adding too much tiny bits of information and are losing out on the core part our project, i.e. data collection for making maps. Adding continously many tiny bits of information means that we are losing out on maintaining and improving our core data. We simply do not have the manpower. I am a near daily mapper, mostly regarding cycling related information, and I am often surprised, how easy it is to encounter bad or missing information in our data base. I consider cycling-related data particularly important, as it is a sector where OSM is leading over the competition, as most cycling-related route-planning sites and most bicycle navigation devices use OSM data. Volker On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, 02:41 Illia Marchenko, <illiamarchenk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > пт, 21 окт. 2022 г., 2:37 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > >> These people could use their free time to make one successful proposals >> instead of five unsuccessful ones that waste everyone's time because >> they are half-hearted. >> > > Most of the rejected proposals are good written, but fundamentally broken. > > The OSMF should not be involved but the OSMF's definition of an "active >> contributor" could nonetheless be used. It would make it less likely to >> get proposals from people who don't map and therefore are unlikely to be >> able to make a good proposal. >> > > I am has been an active contributor in the past, but currently do not map, > and not an "active contributor" in formal sense. I am unlikely to be able > to make a good proposal? > > Keep in mind that the proposal process isn't a one-way street. It can >> only work as long as for every one proposal there are dozens of people >> who can read and constructively participate in the development of the >> proposal. The capacity for new proposals is limited. >> > > I am agree with clause that capacity is limited, but limit are known? For > example, minimal RFC stage may be raised to 30 days, if it is necessary. > > "As do I, but I get a bit concerned when RFCs / proposals are raised for > discussions that are still going on e.g. the recent very involved > discussions re fountains / drinking-water / water-taps, when in-depth > conversations were still proceeding over multiple threads, but there are > actual proposals being raised" > > My apologies. This proposal has been withdrawn very quickly. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
