> What negative result do you fear would occur if somebody used[1] an > unapproved feature? > > [1] That is, they tagged something as documented in the wiki, even if > the documentation is to be found in Proposed Features? I'm not a big > fan of chaotic mapping, where people apply tags randomly without > understanding how they're documented in the wiki, or apply tags > without documenting their meaning in the wiki. > > IMHO, everything underneath Proposed_features should be moved into the > "real" wiki > (e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:stop > should be moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop) and > the feature should be labelled with 1) its current level of usage and > 2) a measure of its controversiality (red / yellow / green). > > That would make it easier for OSM editors to point people to > documentation.
I do not fear anything. I have nothing against another system of "approving". But at the moment approving by voting is described as the way to go. If there would be a consensus about another procedure I would be quite happy about that. But at the moment only some guys on talk said voting is silly, but that is not enough. If you think voting is silly, why do you not change the procedure of approving new features in the wiki? But it is not enough to say, that you want to abolish voting. Based on what facts a feature will be approved then. Or do you want to abolish proposed features completely? BTW the role of talk is too important. Why should new features be discussed on talk, IMO they should be discussed in the forum, a place which is much more accessible and modern and not so outdated like a mailing list. Some of the people here can not even handle it. Most discussion get completely off topic after 3 posts. A moderated forum with an integrated voting mechanism would be the best to introduce new features. lesi _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
