Wiki vote threshold

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wiki vote threshold

brycenesbitt
The current wiki vote guidelines read:

A rule of thumb for "enough support" is 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use).

Consider instead this wording:

There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes. However, if the proposal has significant negative comments, this is an indication that the proposal may benefit from additional drafting time or experience.  A strong proposal will have:

8 or more unanimous approval votes.
16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive or abstaining.
A history of tagging consistent with the proposal, from five or more active mappers. This mapping often starts during the RFC phase, and can be very helpful in refining the proposed tagging.

With OSM's open tagging policy you need not wait for the wiki to start tagging.  The wiki is not a collection of 'rules', and mappers and rendering services are free to ignore your proposal   However you must seek consensus before retagging other mapper's work, or altering established conventions as documented on the wiki.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

David Bannon-2
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The current wiki vote guidelines read:
>
Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
details.

> Consider instead this wording:

>         There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes.
Too subjective ! (Finally, I got to say that on this list!)

>         ..... A strong proposal will have:
>        
>                 8 or more unanimous approval votes.
>                 16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
>                 or abstaining.

OK, but puzzled about 'abstaining' votes. If someone voted, its almost
always yes or no. Lets not count all possible voters please !

>                 A history of tagging consistent with the proposal,
>                 from five or more active mappers. This mapping often
>                 starts during the RFC phase, and can be very helpful
>                 in refining the proposed tagging.

Going to be very difficult to document, to establish the facts. Great
idea to encourage but to make a proposal dependant on it.....
>        
>         With OSM's open tagging policy you need not wait for the wiki
>         to start tagging.  The wiki is not a collection of 'rules',
>         and mappers and rendering services are free to ignore your
>         proposal  

Indeed, but more emphasis is needed on the impact of others ignoring
your impromptu tags. Truth is, tagging effort is wasted if it is
ignored.

As I have said before, you can make up new words when speaking to
someone, but unless you agree on their meaning, you won't be understood.

David



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by brycenesbitt
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> ......
>                 8 or more unanimous approval votes.
>                 16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
>                 or abstaining.

Interesting to consider the current state of reception_desk proposal,
something both you, Bryce, and I voted for.

Your proposed rule would decide in favour of 'no' (14 v. 8)

Its interesting to note that most 'no' were concerned it is a tourism
only tag despite that issue being discussed (and resolved ??) on this
list.

David





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Warin
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
On 3/03/2015 12:31 PM, David Bannon wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The current wiki vote guidelines read:

Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
details.

Consider instead this wording:

      
        There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes. 
Too subjective ! (Finally, I got to say that on this list!)

        ..... A strong proposal will have:
        
                8 or more unanimous approval votes.
                16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
                or abstaining.
OK, but puzzled about 'abstaining' votes. If someone voted, its almost
always yes or no. Lets not count all possible voters please !

I'd take that as the votes cast not the number of tagging group members.



                A history of tagging consistent with the proposal,
                from five or more active mappers. This mapping often
                starts during the RFC phase, and can be very helpful
                in refining the proposed tagging.
Going to be very difficult to document, to establish the facts. Great
idea to encourage but to make a proposal dependant on it.....

There are a number of proposals in the draft stage that people are using .. some have been in draft for years.

      
        
        With OSM's open tagging policy you need not wait for the wiki
        to start tagging.  The wiki is not a collection of 'rules',
        and mappers and rendering services are free to ignore your
        proposal   
Indeed, but more emphasis is needed on the impact of others ignoring
your impromptu tags. Truth is, tagging effort is wasted if it is
ignored. 

As I have said before, you can make up new words when speaking to
someone, but unless you agree on their meaning, you won't be understood.

David
As I see it there are 3 'vote thresholds' ;

The tagging group ... to get 'approved' status.

The mappers themselves - find it usefull and features that match the tag.

The renderers who find a tag frequently used or significant and judge the feature worth placing on 'their' maps.

----------------------------
Making the tagging groups 'approval' more onerous will simply drive people to add the tag (and hopefully documentation) without going to the tagging group at all. Thus possibly leading to more 'bad' tags? I'd rather try to attract the new tags before they get used?

The rejection of tags by the tagging group may reflect on the discussions made during the comments period - some ignored, some not persuasive enough, and some having no participation at all in the discussion thus unable to persuade or be persuaded! The 'failure' of a vote not only reflects poorly on the proposal but the authors, both the proposer and the tagging group as a whole. A 'bad' tag may be changed to a better description during discussions, if the persuasion is good enough, or abandoned for a better tag again if the persuasion is good enough.

The 'failure' of a proposal to gain the required number of votes (either for or against) to me reflects extremely badly on the tagging group....  thus my thoughts on an expiry time for the required number of votes .. decreasing it to 0 at say 6 weeks...!!!! Certainly any proposal that has been in voting stage for over a year deserves some form of termination.

Experience?
No physician is really good before he has killed one or two patients. ~Hindu Proverb




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:46 AM, David Bannon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Its interesting to note that most 'no' were concerned it is a tourism
only tag despite that issue being discussed (and resolved ??) on this
list.

For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss a few important steps.

Right now it is something like
A need for a new tag is determined. A group of people discusses a tag. They find a comprise, document it, start voting. 


But then it seems that other people don't like the tag.

What went wrong ?
- The proposing group didn't consider all possibilities ?
- The documentation didn't make it clear why certain choices were made ?
- The external group did not properly read the proposal ?
- The proposing group made the wrong choice after all ?
...

why not keep the proposal open for a longer period, let people use it. Perhaps by using it the no-voters will see the reason for amenity (in this case) or maybe they see that it is a useful well-defined tag or ...
On the other hand, by actually using the tag new values may be found, the proposing group might want to tweak the definition to better fit cases they didn't think of, ...

Then, only after several months of usage (watch taginfo), start voting to make it an "official" tag. (note the quotes, there is no such thing as an official tag). But only when it has been used sufficiently


Why would you want to rush the definition of a new tag in 1 month or so from defining a need to approved tag ? Is there any reason for that ?

regards

m


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

brycenesbitt
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Jan van Bekkum
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Mateusz Konieczny-2
"It isn't good either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer it for voting later on."

Why not? In one case I had an idea for tag that turned out to be poor one. Testing it by using
saved producing proposal that maybe would seem reasonable but would have many problems.


2015-03-03 14:35 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum <[hidden email]>:
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jan van Bekkum <[hidden email]> wrote:
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.

Take a look at heritage: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage, the draft started on 2009-10-20, RFC on 2010-10-05. No formal voting. It's used 44.000 times, and there is a map showing items mapped with this tag (http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/ ). There are presets for JOSM that supports this tag as well.

I think almost none of the historic values passed through a formal voting process, but because there is a vivid community around it, there is website, there are tools and discussions between mappers that actually use or want to use the tags the tags evolve and get used.

IMHO this approach can work, also for all campsite related tags. 

regards

m

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

brycenesbitt
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Jan van Bekkum <[hidden email]> wrote:
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.

The voting hurdle tends to force the discussion.
That's the value of the vote.

The proposed wording encourages trial tagging.
I find it's only through tagging dozens of examples that my idea of good tagging evolves.
Problems and conflicts with existing tagging come up then also.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

jgpacker
It may be a bit off-topic, but as I have expressed elsewhere, I think one of the problems with the current voting process is the infrastructure.

I believe that using a mailing list plus wiki voting worked ok so far, but needs to be updated.
Most young people probably don't even know what a mailing list is.
I personally find it unnecessarily cumbersome to use it.

We should try to look for other systems, such as Loomio [1]


Another problem I see with the proposals is that usually the proposal writers themselves don't have a good sense on when they should discuss more about the proposal, go to voting, make changes, etc (or even lose the will to do it); leaving the proposal in a draft limbo.


[1]: https://www.loomio.org/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

David Bannon-2
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:36 -0700, jgpacker wrote:
>We should try to look for other systems, such as Loomio [1]
 
The current approach is, perhaps a touch clunky but its stable and
predictable as a service. Mailing lists and wikis have been around for a
long time. There are almost identical services available if we were
forced to stop using one.

Loomio looks good but apparently its been around since 2014. What will
it look like in a year's time ?

I think we need to play safe. I'll bet jbpacker thinks that's because
I'm old ! (guilty as accused Your Honour)

David  


> It may be a bit off-topic, but as I have expressed elsewhere, I think one of
> the problems with the current voting process is the infrastructure.
>
> I believe that using a mailing list plus wiki voting worked ok so far, but
> needs to be updated.
> Most young people probably don't even know what a mailing list is.
> I personally find it unnecessarily cumbersome to use it.
>
> We should try to look for other systems, such as Loomio [1]
>
>
> Another problem I see with the proposals is that usually the proposal
> writers themselves don't have a good sense on when they should discuss more
> about the proposal, go to voting, make changes, etc (or even lose the will
> to do it); leaving the proposal in a draft limbo.
>
>
> [1]: https://www.loomio.org/
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wiki-vote-threshold-tp5835594p5835698.html
> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>         On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis
>         <[hidden email]> 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
>         [hidden email]
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Jan van Bekkum
In exchange for a positive vote I am more than happy to share the links :-)
Regards,

Jan

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:49 AM David Bannon <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>         On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis
>         <[hidden email]> 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
>         [hidden email]
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

brycenesbitt
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum <[hidden email]> wrote:
I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, perhaps because there
are so many abandoned ones.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

David Bannon-2
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>                 I find it quite hard to find existing proposals,
>                 perhaps because there are so many abandoned ones.

>       * A list of active votes can be found at Category:Proposed
>         features "Voting".

Indeed Bryce, and there are only 3 there. But Jan's proposals are under,
perhaps (where there are 194) -
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_features_%">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_features_%
22Proposed%22

or maybe they appear under this one where there are 554 -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_features_under_way

I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way.
I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected.

David


> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Warin
On 4/03/2015 5:56 PM, David Bannon wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum
[hidden email] wrote:
                I find it quite hard to find existing proposals,
                perhaps because there are so many abandoned ones.

      
      * A list of active votes can be found at Category:Proposed
        features "Voting".
Indeed Bryce, and there are only 3 there. But Jan's proposals are under,
perhaps (where there are 194) -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_features_%">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_features_%
22Proposed%22

or maybe they appear under this one where there are 554 -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_features_under_way

I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way.
I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected. 

After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status  ... 'Expired', 'Resting',  'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to some other status? Unless they are in status 'Voting' then judged on the total votes?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

Marc Gemis
I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way.
I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected. 

After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status  ... 'Expired', 'Resting',  'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to some other status? Unless they are in status 'Voting' then judged on the total votes?

or when they are used a lot, just move them to approved (e.g. heritage)

m.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Warin

2015-03-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Warin <[hidden email]>:
After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status  ... 'Expired', 'Resting',  'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to some other status? Unless they are in status 'Voting' then judged on the total votes?



-1
Everyone can see from the dates since when a proposal is proposed. Something like "expired", "resting" or "paused" does not have any benefit besides discouraging unexperienced mappers from using it, while it may already be "de-facto" approved.

Here's an example for a proposal that has been a long time in proposed state but has already some "not to bad" usage numbers:
Here is another proposal, also not voted AFAIK:
4yrs old, 3,3K uses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tombs

4yrs old, 697 uses

4yrs old, 278 uses

4 yrs old, 163 uses

Now, how can we determine that usage is high and the proposal can be considered "active by use"? 13K uses seems a lot, but compared to advertising objects that are covered by this proposal and exist in the world, it is likely a very low percentage of them mapped.

On the other hand, 163 uses don't seem much, but if you have a look how many obelisks there are in the world, maybe the percentage is not too bad, likely higher than that of the advertising proposal. The same holds true for historic aqueducts (the proposal above is just for historic ones).

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wiki vote threshold

brycenesbitt
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
-1
Everyone can see from the dates since when a proposal is proposed. Something like "expired", "resting" or "paused" does not have any benefit besides discouraging unexperienced mappers from using it, while it may already be "de-facto" approved

+1 

What can be useful is finding old proposals which have modern tagging and a few uses, and retagging where the intent is clear.  This can bring new features to the useful map that people can actually see rendered.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12