Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
Hello, the voting period for this proposal [1] is over: I've already extended the period to have more votes, but at the end we have 10 in favor and 1 against. I've also written to the only person who voted against to discuss his opinion, but I've received no response. So what's now? Do you think I should create a definitive wiki page assuming the proposal is approved, although we have only 11 votes in total? [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding Thank you Alberto ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
On 16/giu/2013, at 12:17, "Alberto" wrote: > have more votes, but at the end we have 10 in favor and 1 against. > > I’ve also written to the only person who voted against to discuss his > opinion, but I’ve received no response. > > So what’s now? Do you think I should create a definitive wiki page assuming > the proposal is approved, although we have only 11 votes in total? > if you end voting now it means that your proposal is rejected for absence of interest (must have at least 15 votes). I think given the low number of opponents you could extend the voting period and try to encourage more people to participate in the voting. cheers, Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
Voting is pointless and gives tags an air or importance they do not deserve - there are *no* approved tags, just tags people use. Discussing and documenting tags is good, but voting is just daft, especially when the quorum is just 15 out of about 15000 regular mappers. If you like the tag and find it useful, use it. Alberto wrote: >Hello, the voting period for this proposal [1] is over: I've already >extended the period to have more votes, but at the end we have 10 in >favor >and 1 against. > >I've also written to the only person who voted against to discuss his >opinion, but I've received no response. > >So what's now? Do you think I should create a definitive wiki page >assuming >the proposal is approved, although we have only 11 votes in total? > > > >[1] >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding --- cheers, Chris osm user, chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
On 16.06.2013 12:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 16/giu/2013, at 12:17, "Alberto" > So what’s now? Do you think I should create a definitive wiki page >> assuming the proposal is approved, although we have only 11 votes in >> total? I think you can treat it as approved. The requirement is "has found enough support" - the 8 unanimous votes or 15 votes with majority approval are explicitly only there as a rough example, not a strict rule themselves. In my opinion, relatively decent participation (11 votes) with only one opponent, whose argument has even been taken into account and who is unresponsive now, can clearly be considered enough support. It doesn't make any sense to insist that you should find 4 more persons who oppose your proposal before it can be considered approved... > if you end voting now it means that your proposal is rejected for > absence of interest (must have at least 15 votes). The rules are not as strict as you suggest here. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
Am 16.06.2013 13:24, schrieb Chris Hill: > Alberto wrote: > >> Hello, the voting period for this proposal [1] is over: I've already >> extended the period to have more votes, but at the end we have 10 in >> favor >> and 1 against. >> >> I've also written to the only person who voted against to discuss his >> opinion, but I've received no response. >> >> So what's now? Do you think I should create a definitive wiki page >> assuming >> the proposal is approved, although we have only 11 votes in total? > Voting is pointless and gives tags an air or importance they do not deserve > - there are *no* approved tags, just tags people use. Discussing and > documenting tags is good, but voting is just daft, especially when the > quorum is just 15 out of about 15000 regular mappers. > > If you like the tag and find it useful, use it. +1 Documentation is much more important and you still talk about species and later are mentioning "dog/cat/horse" which are genera. Please, once more, use the already existing tags genus=*, species=* and taxon=*. Thanks fly >> [1] >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point
Hello, for the address system based on reference points, which is largely used in Central American countries we would like to propose the tag "reference_point". This is needed to get routing working in this part of the world. We can not use existing tags (such as landmarks) as reference points can be related to landmarks in the past. Here is the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point Thank you in advance for your comments that will surely help to improve the proposal. Regards, Felix ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
>@Rob: >Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road >Attributes? No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that my general comment about reading through and attempting to address the critical points on the through_route proposal is the right way forward. Yes, this may mean dropping the tag proposal altogether and working with a different tag instead. In my opinion, what the through_route tag was aiming to do is still a good idea. I see it as more important for small unclassified country roads, rather than multi-lane highways. Here in the UK many small historic rural roads can have tight bends and often, if there is a connecting road, a satnav will give an instruction to turn right/left when one is not in fact needed (or not give an instruction when one is needed). Best, Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point
On 06/16/2013 01:45 PM, Felix Delattre wrote: > Hello, > > for the address system based on reference points, which is largely used > in Central American countries we would like to propose the tag > "reference_point". This is needed to get routing working in this part of > the world. We can not use existing tags (such as landmarks) as reference > points can be related to landmarks in the past. > > Here is the proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point By the way, there has been a prior discussion about this topic, when the proposal was drafted about one year ago: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-March/009613.html This may answer some questions and/or could be a good way to keep on with the discussion. > Thank you in advance for your comments that will surely help to improve > the proposal. > > Regards, > Felix > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point
Felix Delattre writes: > for the address system based on reference points, which is largely used > in Central American countries we would like to propose the tag > "reference_point". This is needed to get routing working in this part of > the world. We can not use existing tags (such as landmarks) as reference > points can be related to landmarks in the past. > > Here is the proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point > > Good work, I remember the discussion last year and it do seem reasonable to tag these reference points for adresses. Could it be possible to use addr: as is the case with all other adress- references? addr:reference_point=Little_tree hmm, or wait, that would of course be one the adress it self, I guess whole blocks of houses would have the same reference_point in their adresses. Well, that should be added to the page about addr: as it is not the same as addr:place. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
Martin and Chris opinions are opposite but both true. I thought voting could be a chance to put attention on the proposal, but it seems that few people care about it. On the other hand that proposal doesn't conflict with other tags, so I could simply create a wiki page to document it and bypass voting as Chris suggests. So what should I do, extend voting or not? Alberto > If you end voting now it means that your proposal is rejected for absence of interest (must have at least 15 votes). I think given the low number of opponents you could extend the voting period and try to encourage more people to participate in the voting. > > cheers, > Martin > Voting is pointless and gives tags an air or importance they do not deserve - there are *no* approved tags, just tags people use. Discussing and documenting tags is good, but voting is just daft, especially when the quorum is just 15 out of about 15000 regular mappers. > If you like the tag and find it useful, use it. > > Chris Hill ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
I started a discussion on this on the talk-us list but the best suggestion I've had, received off list, was to ask here on the tagging list. My original thread is at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011066.html Long story: While updating things in the Mt. Pinos area I found that some of the camp sites within a campground were tagged with amenity=parking and ref=SiteNumber. This seems wrong to me and clutters the typical rendering with parking icons where there is no real general purpose parking. See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.81433&lon=-119.1004&zoom=17&layers=M I've tweaked things slightly, adding some missing roads and marking everything as seasonal as it is closed in winter, etc. But, so far, have left the camp site tagging unchanged. Looking around, I found a discussion on the talk-ca list that proposed addr:street=CampgroundName, addr:city=CampgroundName, addr:housenumber=SiteNumber See: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003211.html with an example at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5500386 This seems like "tagging for the renderer" as a campground is neither a street nor a city nor both. It does, however, show the casual map user where the individual sites are. Digging some more, it seems there was a page on the wiki regarding this but I don't see a consensus either on the page or in the associated discussion page and the page has been marked as abandoned. The tagging suggested there seemed a bit clunky too and not in keeping with other addressing conventions. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_lots There were a very limited number of campgrounds marked this way, see http://taginfo.openstreetmap.us/tags/camp_site=lot One example is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=56.06624&lon=14.45492&zoom=17&layers=M (the standard renderers don't show these objects but you can browse the data to see the tagging. My current inclination would be to tag the individual campsites with addr:unit=SiteNumber and possibly addr:housename=CampgroundName but don't have any strong sense this is correct and am looking for guidance. Thanks! Tod ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
On 16/06/2013 15:09, fly wrote: > you still talk about species and later are mentioning "dog/cat/horse" which are genera. 'dog - A domesticated carnivorous mammal, Canis familiaris (or C. lupus familiaris)...' 'cat - A well-known carnivorous quadruped ( Felis domesticus) ...' 'horse - A solid-hoofed perissodactyl quadruped ( Equus caballus)...' (all definitions from Oxford English Dictionary). They all look like species to me. -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
