Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:34:34 +0700
Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> The reality is that most mappers don't pay any attention to this
> group or the "decisions" we make. It's all well and good to make
> careful deliberations about this tag or that one but in the end
> people will do what they want. They will continue to tag for the
> renderer, add tags that make no sense or aren't orthogonal to the
> main tag, add non-existent names to their favorite features
> (name="Dad's house") and there's not much we can do about it.

"there's not much we can do about it" - this is simply untrue. Editors
and map rendering have great power.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Max]

On 2016년 02월 24일 11:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> "there's not much we can do about it" - this is simply untrue. Editors
> and map rendering have great power.

With power comes responsibility.

In my view the responsibility to make a map/rendering that distinguishes
itself from all the commercial maps out there that only care about
monetization. OSM is a map from humans for humans.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Max]

The discussion seems to be happening in the wiki now
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dgallery#Problems_with_the_gallery_tag

Where different people seem to be around. It's kind of tiring having to
bring up all the arguments again because some haven't followed the
discussion here.

:/

> 
> 2016-02-17 13:30 GMT+01:00 Max  >:
> 
> > +0.5, I'd actually make the latter contemporary_art_gallery, although 
> it is long, it removes the ambiguity that art_gallery still has
> 
> yes, but then there are galleries that are still selling works of
> (post-)modern, not necessarily contemporary artists, which they used to
> represent when they still were alive and they continue to sell off their
> stock of multiples. "Edition Block" comes to my mind, allthough there
> might be better examples as they also represent many artists which are
> still alive and contemporary.
> 
> it's complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> I would somehow still find it pertinent to call those "contemporary art
> gallery", where the artists might be defunct but once had chosen this
> gallerist to be represented by him. Even if for an art historian the
> post modernists are no more "contemporary" in 2016, the gallery still
> can be called "contemporary art gallery" if it already existed by the
> time the represented artist was contemporary himself.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

[Paul Johnson]

Very handy when you need it here.  Internet cafes are somewhat common in
rural Oklahoma despite charging $15-30/hour for access on fairly slow
connections, but beats the pants off paying by the megabyte on AT&T's GPRS
network (which can cost as much as $1000/GB).

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Replying in part to Dominic's comment: Internet cafes are fairly rare here
> in Thailand because Internet is available in almost every public venue;
> hotels, coffee shops, even bars. What we do see are gaming rooms, full of
> internet-connected computers and teenagers. While Thailand is not quite a
> first-world country, it is way ahead of the U.S. in terms of Internet
> adoption, fiber connections to homes, etc. I have fast fiber service in my
> rental home, TV with 40 cable-channels included, for about $20 USD per
> month. In the U.S. I would need to pay 2 or 3 times that amount for low end
> DSL and even now very few places offer fiber.
>
> The terms discussed in the proposal, cybercafe and other variants that
> imply food and beverage, don't work well for those places because they are
> for gaming. One would not go there because it's a cafe; any food or drink
> is offered purely as a convenience. I've never tagged any of these because
> I'm not quite sure how to tag them.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Dominic Coletti  > wrote:
>
>> I feel like phone and fax are distinct to internet cafés, and should not
>> be simply thrown out. Especially in developing countries where
>> infrastructure is not as advanced.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:52 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/02/2016 4:33 AM, Johnparis wrote:
>>>
>>> A place whose principal role is providing communication services
>>> (internet, telephone and/or fax).
>>>
>>>
>>> Telephone?
>>> Fax?
>>> Don't thing these are frequent?
>>>
>>> No mention of coffee/tea/cake?
>>>
>>> Nor a mention of additional services such as wifi, CD/DVD burning,
>>> printing
>>>
>>> Think there is a need to indicate how to tag such things that will
>>> probably occur for some places.
>>>
>>> Other than the fee .. probably the most important thing about these
>>> places is the download/upload speed. Some way of tagging that would be
>>> good.
>>>
>>> Sorry to pollute the original idea ... but these thing help identify the
>>> 'internet_cafe' from the 'cafe with internet'.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Internet_cafe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing 
>>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> --
>>
>> *C/CMSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*
>> Whiskey Flight Sergeant, Raleigh-Wake Composite Squadron
>> (H) 919-463-9554
>> U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
>> GoCivilAirPatrol.com 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 23.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :

>>> Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional 
>>> rejection; proposer to make final call.
>> 
>> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people 
>> who voted".
> 
> It is not surprising that only people who voted were voting.


yes, but it's surprising that we have made changes to the tagging system via 
wiki so incredibly difficult. A minority of few more than a quarter of all 
contributors could block the rest (e.g. if all of them voted) in a decision. 
This is completely theoretical of course, but it illustrates that there's 
likely something wrong with the current way of counting votes in the wiki.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Dominic Coletti]

Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the
process.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:39 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> Am 23.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
>
> >>> Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional
> >>> rejection; proposer to make final call.
> >>
> >> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people
> >> who voted".
> >
> > It is not surprising that only people who voted were voting.
>
>
> yes, but it's surprising that we have made changes to the tagging system
> via wiki so incredibly difficult. A minority of few more than a quarter of
> all contributors could block the rest (e.g. if all of them voted) in a
> decision. This is completely theoretical of course, but it illustrates that
> there's likely something wrong with the current way of counting votes in
> the wiki.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 

*C/CMSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*
Whiskey Flight Sergeant, Raleigh-Wake Composite Squadron
(H) 919-463-9554
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
GoCivilAirPatrol.com 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Dominic Coletti]

I meant a more formal incorporation such as adjusting the votes required
based on Taginfo data. That said, I fully support how we currently use it.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 13:32 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Dominic Coletti  >:
> >
> > Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the
> process.
>
>
> can you explain? I think taginfo is usually involved in the process, in
> the sense that people look tags up in taginfo before voting.
>
> cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 

*C/CMSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*
Whiskey Flight Sergeant, Raleigh-Wake Composite Squadron
(H) 919-463-9554
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
GoCivilAirPatrol.com 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Dominic Coletti :
> 
> Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the 
> process.


can you explain? I think taginfo is usually involved in the process, in the 
sense that people look tags up in taginfo before voting. 

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.02.2016 um 11:52 schrieb Max :
> 
> Where different people seem to be around. It's kind of tiring having to
> bring up all the arguments again because some haven't followed the
> discussion here.


yes, mailing list discussions in the archive are not very visible, you can 
still post a link for reference in the wiki, like this: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028403.html

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 12/02/2016, Hakuch  wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Remove_suffixed_name-tags_from_wiki
>
> It was approved with 38 votes for, 10 votes against and 1 abstention.
>
> Approved due to >74% approval (79.167%). Wikipages has been changed
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aname&type=revision&diff=1271795&oldid=1267803
> Key:name
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Aname&type=revision&diff=1271784&oldid=1204516
> Template
>
> thanks for participation

Sorry for the late reply, I was quite busy and it took me a while to
bring a constructive reaction, after letting go of my initial
annoyance.


There was not enough consensus to justify accepting and enacting the
proposal. Looking just at the vote counts but ignoring the discussions
around it makes little sense.

The opinions were varied, but there was clear support in keeping the
name_N documentation, both for the basic principle of documenting
current practices, and because some contributors believe it is a
better way of tagging multiple-value fields. If anything, name_1 needs
to be kept because it is sometimes technically needed, even if it
isn't the prefered option. On top of that, this isn't an "either-or"
case where if we choose one scheme we need to deprecate the others.

I've reverted the deletion, which makes as little sense as deleting
the Semicolon page would. To make things a bit more constructive, I've
also created a page documenting MV tagging in general (trying to
gather all the points mentioned during last month's threads, sticking
to current practices, not advocating for one scheme over another) and
made other tweaks to the name pages. Feel free to discuss here or on
the wiki.


As an aside, using a wiki proposal just to decide what should go in
the wiki, rather than what should go in the db, is a strange thing. By
the time you reduced the scope of your proposal from deprecating
name_N to merely un-documenting it, when it became clear (?) that
name_N had an important role to play, the proposal was IMHO dead on
arrival. I nearly didn't bother casting my vote against it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name&diff=next&oldid=1275952

Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a
knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've
explained  how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of
the discussion on [Tagging], and why name_N cannot simply be
deprecated.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:name&diff=next&oldid=1275945

Same here, reverted without discussion. I think those changes are
ill-advised and intend to restore name_N in the wiki but again: I
don't want to go in an edit war and would really like you to discuss
things.

On 24/02/2016, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name&diff=next&oldid=1275952
>
> Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a
> knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've
> explained  how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of
> the discussion on [Tagging], and why name_N cannot simply be
> deprecated.
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[Hakuch]

hey, I didnt want to start an edit war, but I just didnt see that you
wrote on the tagging list.

i will write more later, I even informed you just by message, but the
proposal was very clear, you were not allowed to just change the pages.
You even should have informed the list BEFORE you did it. Now please do
not put it in my direction, that i want to start a edit war

this is just a quick mail

On 24.02.2016 23:08, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name&diff=next&oldid=1275952
> 
> Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a
> knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've
> explained  how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of
> the discussion on [Tagging], and why name_N cannot simply be
> deprecated.
> 

-- 
BITTE BESORG DIR EINE NEUE EMAILADRESSE!

Wenn du mit mir über eine Gmail Adresse schreibst, landet alles was wir
kommunizieren bei Google und wird dort gespeichert, analysiert,
bewertet, verwendet.
Wenn dir das egal ist ok, deine Sache. Aber ich will da nicht mit
reingezogen werden.
Also schon aus Respekt deinen Kommunikationspartner-innen gegenüber, hol
dir bitte eine Adresse von Posteo.de, Mailbox.org oder Riseup.net


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[Hakuch]

again, **you** just changed the wiki **without** consulting the list,
the changes I made was decided by the proposal process that took quite a
while.

I just didnt know, that you also wrote something on the tagging list.
However.

On 24.02.2016 23:29, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:name&diff=next&oldid=1275945
> 
> Same here, reverted without discussion. I think those changes are
> ill-advised and intend to restore name_N in the wiki but again: I
> don't want to go in an edit war and would really like you to discuss
> things.
> 
> On 24/02/2016, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name&diff=next&oldid=1275952
>>
>> Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a
>> knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've
>> explained  how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of
>> the discussion on [Tagging], and why name_N cannot simply be
>> deprecated.
>>

-- 
BITTE BESORG DIR EINE NEUE EMAILADRESSE!

Wenn du mit mir über eine Gmail Adresse schreibst, landet alles was wir
kommunizieren bei Google und wird dort gespeichert, analysiert,
bewertet, verwendet.
Wenn dir das egal ist ok, deine Sache. Aber ich will da nicht mit
reingezogen werden.
Also schon aus Respekt deinen Kommunikationspartner-innen gegenüber, hol
dir bitte eine Adresse von Posteo.de, Mailbox.org oder Riseup.net


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 24 February 2016 at 23:08, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name&diff=next&oldid=1275952
>
> Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a
> knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've
> explained  how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of
> the discussion on [Tagging], and why name_N cannot simply be
> deprecated.

Moltonel, could you please refrain from making changes that go against
the community wishes? I know you have good intentions (and you might
even be right), but the community has discussed this topic in depth
and decided on the outcome by vote, and you are making changes that
disrespect the voting outcome. It's you who is starting the edit war,
not Hakuch (and I'm saying this as a neutral outside observer).

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/02/2016, Hakuch  wrote:
> hey, I didnt want to start an edit war, but I just didnt see that you
> wrote on the tagging list.
>
> i will write more later, I even informed you just by message, but the
> proposal was very clear, you were not allowed to just change the pages.
> You even should have informed the list BEFORE you did it. Now please do
> not put it in my direction, that i want to start a edit war

Fair enough, the timing was a bit short to read my email on the list.
I guess the short reaction time (especially compared to my multi-day
pondering) was what made it feel like an edit war to me, sorry.

Just like you 1) marked the proposal as approved 2) enacted the
proposal 3) emailed the list all in one session a few days ago, I
edited the wiki and emailed the list in one session today.

> this is just a quick mail

Looking forward to the long one.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/02/2016, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> Moltonel, could you please refrain from making changes that go against
> the community wishes? I know you have good intentions (and you might
> even be right), but the community has discussed this topic in depth
> and decided on the outcome by vote, and you are making changes that
> disrespect the voting outcome. It's you who is starting the edit war,
> not Hakuch (and I'm saying this as a neutral outside observer).

The possibility that I missjuged the community's opinion is one reason
it took me so long to reply. It took me a while to be confident enough
that the proposal was approved wrongly, and I've tried to state my
arguments clearly.

An edit war is not just about multiple reverts, it is also about the
speed of these reverts and the lack of discussion.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[Hakuch]

On 24.02.2016 22:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> There was not enough consensus to justify accepting and enacting the
> proposal. Looking just at the vote counts but ignoring the discussions
> around it makes little sense.

the discussions are important, and they should go on to find a uniform
tagging scheme. But voting is a way to find a solution. That doesnt
mean, that the disussion about a topic is ignored. Everyone was able to
take part in the voting, as in the discussion

> The opinions were varied, but there was clear support in keeping the
> name_N documentation, both for the basic principle of documenting
> current practices, and because some contributors believe it is a
> better way of tagging multiple-value fields. If anything, name_1 needs
> to be kept because it is sometimes technically needed, even if it
> isn't the prefered option. On top of that, this isn't an "either-or"
> case where if we choose one scheme we need to deprecate the others.

I really do not want to go again in this discussion, when you start this
with just editing the wiki pages without asking on the list. But I also
would like to know what means "technically needed"

> I've reverted the deletion.

that was against the decision of the proposal where everyone was able to
take part. At least, you should have pointed out your decision before
you did the changes.

>, which makes as little sense as deleting
> the Semicolon page would. 

you can start a proposal if you want to delete the page

> To make things a bit more constructive, I've
> also created a page documenting MV tagging in general (trying to
> gather all the points mentioned during last month's threads, sticking
> to current practices, not advocating for one scheme over another) and
> made other tweaks to the name pages. Feel free to discuss here or on
> the wiki.

As I told you in the message, I like the idea to have a special MV Page.
But you shouldn't advise something there that has been discouraged by
the proposal (you even removed the link to the proposal on the name
page!) And the whole MV thing is still in discussion, you should inform
about this on the page and call in the people to join the discussion
with their ideas.

> As an aside, using a wiki proposal just to decide what should go in
> the wiki, rather than what should go in the db, is a strange thing. 

the wiki is the entrance to the database, better it should be. Mappers
who care for consistency check the wiki before they start just tagging
as they want to (and what looks nice on an arbitrary map).
And by the way, I really would like to have a cool proposal and voting
plattform to motivate more people to take part in votings and discussion.

> By
> the time you reduced the scope of your proposal from deprecating
> name_N to merely un-documenting it, when it became clear (?) that
> name_N had an important role to play, the proposal was IMHO dead on
> arrival. 

I dont understand this. Do you mean the problem of the title "remove
suffixed tags" ? Just to mention here again, the title was bad, yes. But
I never changed the content of the proposal. Just people who didn't read
carefully enough the content where misleaded by the title.


-- 
BITTE BESORG DIR EINE NEUE EMAILADRESSE!

Wenn du mit mir über eine Gmail Adresse schreibst, landet alles was wir
kommunizieren bei Google und wird dort gespeichert, analysiert,
bewertet, verwendet.
Wenn dir das egal ist ok, deine Sache. Aber ich will da nicht mit
reingezogen werden.
Also schon aus Respekt deinen Kommunikationspartner-innen gegenüber, hol
dir bitte eine Adresse von Posteo.de, Mailbox.org oder Riseup.net


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[Hakuch]

On 24.02.2016 23:40, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> Just like you 1) marked the proposal as approved 2) enacted the
> proposal 3) emailed the list all in one session a few days ago, I
> edited the wiki and emailed the list in one session today.

sorry, but what is wrong that I did? The voting was over (to be honest,
it was already some days over) and the decision was made. marking it as
approved, setting the status of the proposal and emailing the list is
just post-voting-cleanup and the typical procedure that SHALL be done.

That is absoulutely no justification for your edits without asking the
the list.


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 24/02/2016, Hakuch  wrote:
> On 24.02.2016 22:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> The opinions were varied, but there was clear support in keeping the
>> name_N documentation, both for the basic principle of documenting
>> current practices, and because some contributors believe it is a
>> better way of tagging multiple-value fields. If anything, name_1 needs
>> to be kept because it is sometimes technically needed, even if it
>> isn't the prefered option. On top of that, this isn't an "either-or"
>> case where if we choose one scheme we need to deprecate the others.
>
> I really do not want to go again in this discussion, when you start this
> with just editing the wiki pages without asking on the list. But I also
> would like to know what means "technically needed"

When you have more than two names with the same semantic value, name_N
is the only way to tag this. alt_name can only contain one name,
semicolons are not a viable option for names.


>> I've reverted the deletion.
>
> that was against the decision of the proposal where everyone was able to
> take part.

And my reading of the situation is that there wasn't enough consensus
for the proposal, despite what the vote counts say. I suppose this is
the crux of this "appeal", and I discuss it further at the end of this
mail.


> At least, you should have pointed out your decision before
> you did the changes.

As far as I can tell, you're just as "guilty" of editing the wiki and
emailing the list at the same time (modulo typing speed) as I am. Your
approval of the proposal looked very strange to me, and had you
mentioned it on the list before enacting it on the wiki I would have
immediately commented on it. But such delays quickly get impractical,
so the pragmatic decision (yours and mine) is to do both at the same
time.


>>, which makes as little sense as deleting
>> the Semicolon page would.
>
> you can start a proposal if you want to delete the page

You missread me, I was comparing the deletion of the name_N scheme to
the deletion of the semicolon scheme. They both serve the same
purpose, but neither should get deprecated. Same goes for alt_name,
for that matter.


>> To make things a bit more constructive, I've
>> also created a page documenting MV tagging in general (trying to
>> gather all the points mentioned during last month's threads, sticking
>> to current practices, not advocating for one scheme over another) and
>> made other tweaks to the name pages. Feel free to discuss here or on
>> the wiki.
>
> As I told you in the message, I like the idea to have a special MV Page.
> But you shouldn't advise something there that has been discouraged by
> the proposal (you even removed the link to the proposal on the name
> page!) And the whole MV thing is still in discussion, you should inform
> about this on the page and call in the people to join the discussion
> with their ideas.

Firstly, there is a difference between documenting current practices
and advising for one practice over another. I did my best to remain
factual and to document but not advise, even if I secretly wish that
we stoped using multiple schemes and converged on one that had less
flaws than the others.

Secondly, while writing the MV page I did my best to summarize all the
opinions of the recent threads (even some I didn't fully agree with),
and my first email today was a way to ask people to join the
discussion.


>> As an aside, using a wiki proposal just to decide what should go in
>> the wiki, rather than what should go in the db, is a strange thing.
>
> the wiki is the entrance to the database, better it should be. Mappers
> who care for consistency check the wiki before they start just tagging
> as they want to (and what looks nice on an arbitrary map).

We agree on that. But it seemed to me that there was a disconnect
between the wiki edit proposal and your acceptance of existing data :

>> this proposal is about the wiki, that
>> name_1 and alt_name_1 should not be suggested there for good tagging.
>> Its not about the existing data in OSM.

If your proposal mentioned converting existing data as well as
removing its mentions from the wiki, it would have been more coherent.
Maybe I'm missreading things ?


>> By
>> the time you reduced the scope of your proposal from deprecating
>> name_N to merely un-documenting it, when it became clear (?) that
>> name_N had an important role to play, the proposal was IMHO dead on
>> arrival.
>
> I dont understand this. Do you mean the problem of the title "remove
> suffixed tags" ? Just to mention here again, the title was bad, yes. But
> I never changed the content of the proposal. Just people who didn't read
> carefully enough the content where misleaded by the title.

That is part of the problem with the proposal, and its votes. It
touched lots of topics, and some people probably got confused about
the rather focused intent (I certainly did). For example there was
strong consensus on the list against the behavior of the iD edito

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 25/02/2016, Hakuch  wrote:
> On 24.02.2016 23:40, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> Just like you 1) marked the proposal as approved 2) enacted the
>> proposal 3) emailed the list all in one session a few days ago, I
>> edited the wiki and emailed the list in one session today.
>
> sorry, but what is wrong that I did? The voting was over (to be honest,
> it was already some days over) and the decision was made. marking it as
> approved, setting the status of the proposal and emailing the list is
> just post-voting-cleanup and the typical procedure that SHALL be done.

What you did is not wrong, editing the wiki and emailing the list at
the same time is the pragmatic thing to do. Even taking the vote
counts to approve the proposal is not wrong, most would even say it's
right :p

> That is absoulutely no justification for your edits without asking the
> the list.

I honestly believe I acted in the same way that you did (no accusation
of wrong-doing). I couldn't have just emailed the list without editing
the wiki (or vice-versa), I drafted the email and the wiki changes
together, and only together do they form a full argument.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Marc Gemis]

Taginfo is just reporting numbers. It can be hard to do a correct
interpretation of those numbers

- impact of an import / mechanical edit
- impact of presets in editors
- impact of a vocal member  in a local community that is followed by a
 group of local mappers
- impact of a crazy mapper (e.g. most landuse in Belgium in mapped by 1
person).
- local difference in interpretation (e.g. allotments are used differently
in Russia I believe -- see some SOTM presentation).
- how do you know what is meant by the mappers when you only see the
key-values: e.g. shop=salon (hairdresser ? seats (salon in french) ?)

I've also noticed that some communities do not participate in the votings
at all (or hardly): Where were the voters from e.g. Russia, Belgium, The
Netherlands, Japan or France in the suffix voting ? or the jewellery voting
?
OTOH I see a pretty large group of German voters. Also, the there is a
certain group of people returning in all votings.

I'm not blaming anyone for participating in the voting process all the
time, someone has to do the hard work of defining new tags. However, it
hardly representative for the community as a whole. If we want diversity
(often mentioned during OSMF elections), we have to change this.
How can we let more people with more different backgrounds participate in
the tagging definition process ? And do we want this ?

I have no idea.

regards

m

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Dominic Coletti 
wrote:

> I meant a more formal incorporation such as adjusting the votes required
> based on Taginfo data. That said, I fully support how we currently use it.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 13:32 Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > Am 24.02.2016 um 18:57 schrieb Dominic Coletti <
>> dcoletti.dc...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > Do you have an alternative? For example, incorporating Taginfo into the
>> process.
>>
>>
>> can you explain? I think taginfo is usually involved in the process, in
>> the sense that people look tags up in taginfo before voting.
>>
>> cheers
>> Martin
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> --
>
> *C/CMSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*
> Whiskey Flight Sergeant, Raleigh-Wake Composite Squadron
> (H) 919-463-9554
> U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
> GoCivilAirPatrol.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[markus schnalke]

[2016-02-25 01:37] moltonel 3x Combo 
>
> That is part of the problem with the proposal, and its votes. It
> touched lots of topics, and some people probably got confused about
> the rather focused intent (I certainly did). For example there was
> strong consensus on the list against the behavior of the iD editor,
> even though this was a very tangential (dare I say unrelated ?) topic.
> I am sure this skewed the results (this seems to be the case at least
> for the votes of Meillo and geow, amonst the minority who commented).

As my name is mentioned:

In my opinion, this proposal covers only one minor part of the
whole MV topic, but nontheless, as I think the proposal does more
good than it does harm, I do approve it.

By no means, we should treat the result of this proposal as the
end of the MV discussion, it should rather be seen as the beginning.


meillo

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging