Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

Everyone, I think this is going in the wrong direction. I have just skim-read this thread but I have the impression that the basic assumption seems to be "tagging votes are an important core element of how we work at OSM, so we must increase participation, make tagging votes more widely known,

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

On 18/03/2015 6:21 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Everyone, The outcome of a vote should really be phrased: "The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and would recommend using it" rather than "This proposal has been accepted" because the latter really affords the whole pro

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

On 18/03/2015 5:02 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt >wrote: A separate debate is how to increase voting participation. making pending votes more visible in the editing tools could help. Just some idea: Translate the pr

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-18 0:58 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan : > Your rule would mean that with 7/3 would be a rejection while 8/7 an > approval. > I suggest to not only bring the logic back but also address this issue. > +1, I would like to reflect on the quorum rule. In the end, looking at how many people map

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 7:02 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > Just some idea: > Translate the proposal in German, French, Spanish and Russian, ... (the > largest communities outside the English speaking countries) > Let people vote and discuss in their own language. Sum up the votes from > the different pages. > -1,

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 9:15 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > "The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and >> would recommend using it" >> >> rather than >> >> "This proposal has been accepted" >> >> because the latter really affords the whole process much more relevance >> th

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I said few years ago that "vote" should be replaced by "opinion poll". This hasn't change in my view, > It is however not true that tagging votes are an important core element > of how we work; we can do perfectly fine without. Yes and no. I

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

So theoretically, we shouldn't ban anything from being mapped (or almost anything). But practically, we don't want people being routed to the nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this? One way could be to add a prefix like "private:" to anything that is by default p

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 11:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > So theoretically, we shouldn't ban anything from being mapped (or almost > anything). But practically, we don't want people being routed to the > nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this? if that toilet is tagged with

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 11:09 GMT+01:00 Pieren : > the use of abstruse > abbreviations for the non-natives like "ngo", "aed" or "asl". > +1 > > > Even if certain things > > were tagged differently in different parts of the word, that would not > > break OpenStreetMap. > > Only a fraction of us is thinkin

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Approved_or_rejected > from "...8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority > approval..." > t

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 11:38 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and the > tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag is > for "toilet[s] open to the public". > Well, it is a toilet, and it is an amenity, although a pr

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 11:52 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and >> the tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag >> is for "toilet[s] open to the public". >> > > Well, it is a toilet, and it is an amenity, although a

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 12:15 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside > another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right. > Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets, waste_disposals, and so on. But they ar

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 8:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm : > "The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and > would recommend using it" > > rather than > > "This proposal has been accepted" > +1 (thousand) I already decided some time ago, that I will not put any of my proposal up for votin

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema? If it is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not amenity=toilet and access=private? Or a better example, a toilet in a train station that is for staff only amenity=toilet access=private or access=

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

On 18 March 2015 at 08:21, Frederik Ramm wrote: > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. +1 A thought, how difficult would

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 8:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm : > Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. > somehow they are lasting. The definition that gets voted is typically the same that will be in use for some time. Then there will be objects in the database which are tagged according to that def

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm : > A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how > many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via > TagInfo. > This in fact would be a very helpful information! Although - please everyone correct me if I'm

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Pieren wrote: > -1 > The main criticism about "votes" is the "approved" status and the > small amount of participants, not percentage of approvals. So change > the status name and increase the quorum, not the opposite. It's also > not a problem to keep the "vote"

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 12:30 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside >> another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right. >> > > Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets, > waste_disposals, and so on. > the operat

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:31:12PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote: > On 17/03/2015 16:06, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > >Is there something I'm missing? > > No, you have spotted the fact that (as always!) that the documentation is > unfinished. I had done it on this page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 12:44 GMT+01:00 : > Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema? > If it is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not > amenity=toilet and access=private? according to the current schema you cannot tag like this (and I don't want to

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-18 12:55 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan : > - Develop a new formula first. > I'd prefer to require something like "not more than x percent negative votes" rather than "at least y percent positive votes", because when requiring a percentage of positive votes all abstentions count like negativ

Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?

Having lived in Russia and Germany for quite a while, I can confirm that the language barrier definitely plays a strong role. A lot of people in Russia will never use the English-language internet at all. I think the same holds for France, Spain and Italy, to a lesser extent for Germany. In the Net

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding. +1 to all that. While I think that "voting" is

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 18.03.2015 07:29, David Bannon wrote: >> And amazing how many people vote, compared to those that take part in >> the discussion. > > Indeed. I find that strange. I'd never vote on something I did not have > an opinion on. And, as you lot know, if I have an opinion, I share it ! > > Maybe peop

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

Am 18.03.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Martin Vonwald: > 2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm : > >> A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how >> many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via >> TagInfo. >> > > > This in fact would be a very helpf

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 12:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > the operator doesn't tell you anything about access rights, property > structure, "publicness" etc. > It is about the entity _operating_ a feature / object / thing. > It doesn't, but it tells you who decides on those things. That's as much deta

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

Am 18.03.2015 um 09:26 schrieb Warin: > On 18/03/2015 5:02 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt > >wrote: >> >> A separate debate is how to increase voting participation. making >> pending votes more visible in the editing

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

I agree with Martin on not changing the definition of tags where public access, or a subset of the public (customers) is inherent in the tags definition through tag modifiers. But everyone is envisioning a future where information about private facilities would eventually become part of OSM -

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 18/03/2015 11:58, Richard Z. wrote: so should for example the OpenSeaMap tagging for bridges become deprecated? Not deprecated, but considered on a case-by-case basis. It is a question of whether important navigation information would be deleted if the seamark tags were removed. In the cas

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

2015-03-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or b

Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?

> Am 18.03.2015 um 13:17 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan : > > Note that now we are approaching the OSM internationalization consequences > rather than just the question of mailing list discussions. I believe it is generally difficult to decide on English tags when you don't speak English. Chee

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

> Am 18.03.2015 um 14:14 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : > > Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages > : > * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) it is impossible to see from taginfo what a tag is used for, and for what

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 17.03.2015 15:04, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes > in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Approved_or_rejected > from ".../8 unanimous approval votes/ /or //15 total votes with a > majority approval.../" > to "/...8

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

> Am 18.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb John Willis : > > simply appending "private:" on existing public tags is not preferred, though > the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything in the world > again. I think prefixing private: is a viable idea, it can be easily filtered o

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On 18/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via >> taginfo) > > it is impossible to see from taginfo what a tag is used for, and for what > it can't be used. You only get statistics how much it is used > >> * key/tag pages could be k

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

On 18.03.2015 14:36, fly wrote: > Am 18.03.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Martin Vonwald: >> 2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm : >> >>> A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how >>> many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via >>> TagInfo. >> >> T

Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways

Hi, Am Montag, den 16.03.2015, 20:04 -0400 schrieb Richard Welty: > as i go forward mapping raceways in north america, one of the > issues is modeling multi configuration courses such as Watkins > Glen and Lime Rock. > > one solution is to use route relations, and add a new > route type, > > rou

Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways

On 3/18/15 2:20 PM, Werner Hoch wrote: > There is type=circuit > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Circuit > example (Monaco) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148194 It is > used about 60 times in OSM. that's not bad. i'd probably want to add some other roles, perhaps pa

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > It is however not true that tagging votes are an important core element > of how we work; we can do perfectly fine without. Even if certain things > were tagged differently in different parts of the word, that would not > break OpenStreetM

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I'd prefer to require something like "not more than x percent negative > votes" rather than "at least y percent positive votes", because when > requiring a percentage of positive votes all abstentions count like > negative votes. > >

Re: [Tagging] Language - was Accepted or rejected?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I believe it is generally difficult to decide on English tags when you > don't speak English. > I tend to disagree. A lot of people would be able to use the words "temperature" or "reception desk". The same people however may not feel

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and vote compared to the number of mappers. STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!! Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody else it's just as mess and feels like spam. We are 100x more productive in the Ger

[Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Very good ideas and it would bring the original intention of OSM back into > the play: the numbers count and not the two-and-a-half people putting a > line starting with "yes" somewhere in the wiki. > > I think some opposition to a proper

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > +1 on showing the vote and discussion in the final page. > > And I guess +1 on the lack of a vote. The ugly proposals DO look ugly. > > --- > This works well for single proposals, but fails to capture *competing > proposals *or* subsequent

Re: [Tagging] Bridge Parapets

It would appear that the rendering for a bridge might include the parapet. Much of my local mapping however includes barriers along roads. These are generally connected to the bridge parapet. It would seem reasonable to therefore have a seperate way for each bridge paparet that links the barr

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

What Forum? Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Andreas Goss Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎18‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎20‎:‎19 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and > vote compared to the numbe

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:19 +0100, Andreas Goss wrote: > ... > STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!! > > Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody > else it's just as mess and feels like spam. Andreas, I don't think email or mailing lists require "tech savy". My 87 year old mo

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

What Forum? http://forum.openstreetmap.org/ __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 18/03/2015 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-03-18 12:55 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan >: - Develop a new formula first. all abstentions count like negative votes. Firstly I see no point in casting a vote of 'abstention'.. why vote at all? Thos

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

How about this: A road with a private frequency of 154.635 and a squelch tone of 156.7 Frequency= 154.635 MHz Frequency:squelch= 156.7 Hz A road with that uses CB channel 5 Frequency= 27.015 MHz Frequency:channel: CB 5 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@op

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 19/03/2015 8:36 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: What Forum? http://forum.openstreetmap.org/ __ I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' prob

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:14 AM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, l

Re: [Tagging] Bridge Parapets

This sounds like it would be connected to the "man_made=bridge" proposals to map bridges as polygons. Maybe representing the parapets as lines that share nodes with part of the "man_made=bridge" polygon? -- Chris Hoess On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > It would appear tha

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > I think some opposition to a proper voting mechanism is concentrating too > much on the numbers. Indeed, we can have just 1 person proposing a tag, 20 > people voting about it, and thousands actually using (or miusing) it. > However: > > 1) As mentioned els

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:40 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > . would it make sense to change the current proposal/voting > mechanism like follows? > - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined > mathematically if needed), this very page is converted into a feature > page.

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 19/03/2015 12:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: Most mappers don't read this mailing list, but they come across a proposal when searching the wiki. E.g. when someone wishes to map a beehive he's seen this morning, he'll search the wiki and he will find Proposed features/apiary. This is a very

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 18.03.2015 22:50, Warin wrote: > I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps > topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated > branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' problem, some even have a > system of not viewing post by someone they

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

2015-03-18 21:58 GMT+00:00 David Bannon : > On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:40 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > >> . would it make sense to change the current proposal/voting >> mechanism like follows? > >> - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined >> mathematically if needed),

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:09 +1100, Warin wrote: > I see no point in having a proposal open for voting over 1 year, those > that want to vote have done so, the proposals voting should be closed > and resolved. Hmm, I disagree. Just because the proposal did not get enough votes does not mean it s

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On 18/03/2015, Christopher Hoess wrote: > That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on > coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory > proposals with no incentive to resolve them. Are you afraid of wiki bloat ? I don't think it'd be much of a

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 18.03.2015 22:40, Warin wrote: > Firstly I see no point in casting a vote of 'abstention'.. why vote at all? An abstention indicates that someone has neither a strong positive nor negative feeling even after pondering. The world is not just black and white. When you look at my abstention votes

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On 19/03/2015 8:57 AM, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:14 AM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote: > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > mapper in

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote: > > So here's how I would answer your question of how would "an interested > party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded": > instead of approved/rejected, some sort of visual widget on the wiki > page which summarised the {{yes

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

To make it clear: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Why should the page be "converted to a feature page" ? Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distinguished from a proposal created ye

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, David Bannon wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote: > > > > So here's how I would answer your question of how would "an interested > > party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded": > > instead of approved/rejected, some s

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 18.03.2015 23:09, Warin wrote: > A person coming across something that they want to map and then finding it > on the wiki .. If that person is not on the tagging group then they don't > want to be concerned with making tags, they simply want to use them. Compare it to politics. Many people don'

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

Kotya, in no way was I criticising the leadership you have shown in this matter ! Its just that I preferred Dan's approach. Key IMHO is - * A proposal gets to wiki in much the same manner as now. * Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a "like" or "dislike" button a

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I like the incentive to document the use .. as undocumented tags can be > removed .. maybe this could be automated ;-)Say 6 months of > undocumented presence = automatic deletion. A warning meassage to the user > may pr

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > >> Am 18.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb John Willis : >> >> simply appending "private:" on existing public tags is not preferred, though >> the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything in the >> world ag

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:30 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 18/03/2015, Christopher Hoess wrote: > > That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on > > coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory > > proposals with no incentive to resolve t

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Mechanical Tagging Proposal - dump_station - conditional

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:43 PM, SomeoneElse wrote: > On 18/03/2015 20:21, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > >> For your comment is the following proposal is to consolidate sanitary >> dump station tagging semi-mechanically: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_ >> Nesbitt#DISCUSSI

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Malcolm Herring < malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Not deprecated, but considered on a case-by-case basis. It is a question > of whether important navigation information would be deleted if the seamark > tags were removed. In the case of bridges, the safe a