That is a nice text where you admit that according to you the proposal system somehow magically grants wiki editors permission to vandalize other people's tag documentation and at the same time allows them to document hardly used but voted tags.
For people who have missed why the voting system is broken. Here is a nice example: <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation> On 07/04/2013 11:48 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 04.07.2013 23:04, Cartinus wrote: >> gluten_free=yes has 53 uses >> diet:gluten_free has 88 uses >> >> This insignificant difference suddenly lets you declare one key as >> controversial and hardly used? > > The gluten_free key is controversial because there are many users who > support a different key. It is hardly used because it only has 53 uses. > > The stats for diet:gluten_free did not play any role for my argument. > >> You can't play the numbers game only when it suits you and stay believable. > > To me, proposals do matter (so diet:vegetarian from your examples would > not be judged purely based on usage stats). I just don't consider it a > requirement for considering a tag established. The proposal process is > simply one of several valid approaches. > > As for gluten_free, why I'm even looking at the numbers here is because > there has to be some proper reason for giving a key its own Key:* page. > And gluten_free does not have an approved proposal, major tool support > or anything like that, so the only thing left would be impressive > taginfo stats - but it doesn't have much to offer in that department either. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
