Talk:Proposed features

From OpenStreetMap

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Sign your comments on Proposed features sub-pages?

Perhaps if somebody adds a comment to the subpages here, you should sign them like this- ~~~~? - Bruce89 13:02, 13 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if the subpages are to function like talk pages. Wikipedia says sign your posts on talk pages. OSM Wiki is not Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's style guidelines are the result of vast experience of what works best. Teratornis 17:59, 7 Aug 2006 (BST)
  • Another option might be to put the talk-style comments on the talk pages of the sub-pages, while trying to keep the sub-pages proper relatively less chatty, and reflecting the current consensus. For example:
That makes sense, it's just that currently, some of the subpages are treated as talk pages. I think your idea of keeping all discussion to the talk page is best. Bruce89 18:44, 7 Aug 2006 (BST)

Moved page

I've just moved this to use the same name as the now sub pages --Dean Earley 10:46, 4 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Template for sub pages / actually doing something

Perhaps we could have something on each sub-page to show which renderers have actually implemented any given feature Ojw 05:10, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Approved features

What process should we go to to move a feature from "proposed" to "approved"?
Accept votes (Comments/signature on each page) and whichever reaches 5 more then the other first wins? --Dean Earley 23:25, 19 Jul 2006 (BST)

Personally I think if they fit with the current format of Map Features they can be included after a short time here to alow for anyone to comment on duplication or alternatives. I don't see the need for a vote. Blackadder 09:59, 20 Jul 2006 (BST)
I agree, if no one has said a proposed feature is a bad idea, then after a short while it should be transferred to the Map Features page. Dmgroom 11:27, 20 Jul 2006 (BST)
Just move anything older than 2 weeks into Map Features unless there's a load of objections to it? Ojw 20:00, 25 September 2006 (BST)
Proposed features Sandbox--Nickvet419 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ordering

Are the proposed features in any particular order? - most recently at the top for example? --Gwall 10:53, 5 September 2006 (BST)

It started out in chronological order, most recent at the bottom. But this order doesn't seem to have been adhered to. The advantage of having it in date order is that it is relatively easy to identify potential transfers of the oldest to the approved map features page. Dmgroom 11:22, 5 September 2006 (BST)

Procedure to add a new proposed feature

Is it as simple as adding it to this page or is there a discussion before on some other page and someone in charge edits this page ? Pov 14:21, 1 October 2006 (BST)

"send out a request for voting to the mailing list and set the voteStartDate" however it does not state what mailing-list is ment (osm-talk? osm-dev? osm-talk-<country>?). --MarcusWolschon 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

different signs for different nationalities

If I see an american police sign, I think of a parking lot. Is it possible to do some default sign lists for us, en, de...? Jk 21:25, 23 October 2006 (BST)

The Tables

I feel bad about the column "Rendered as" in the tables of the page. In my oppinion the way how something should be rendered is strongly dependend of the purpose of the map (if rendering a map is the purpos at all). It may also be dependend on cultur, nation etc, see the parking lot issue above.

I suggest to remove this column completely and instead put in a column, that gives a short description of the proposed feature. --Kumakyoo 18:34, 27 April 2007 (BST)

  • I agree. Osm's data shouldn't be built up around 1 renderer, and what something renders like misses the point. What's inportant is what the tag covers and what the key/value is, and how it fits in with other tags. Ben 03:15, 28 April 2007 (BST)
  • I also agree. --Hawke 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning Up this Page, and Making this work more like a wiki

I think that unless there are objections, or a proposal is still in an active discussion, then everything should be added to the features page. We shouldn't really be voting on everything, but just discussing it. At least if things are put onto the map features page, then they will be noticed and can be removed when valid reasons are made. So on the 21st of June, I propose that this page should have a mass filtering. Anything else, should sit here for a week/fortnight and then the same. Objections? (Some things should be shifted right away really)Ben 23:04, 7 June 2007 (BST)

  • The content of text should not be changed generally. Please respect, the OSM project is not only a dictionary. This is also a software project. Descriptions are free, but determinations with influence to the software are to be discussed. This concerns, for example, the acceptance for keys and names. OnTour 21:56, 11 July 2007 (BST)
  • OSM is mapdata. Its not a dictionary, and its not a softwear project. Acceptance isn't the same as a vote. The only softwere effected by changing tags is the rendering and that is not what OSM is. OSM is the data. Renderer's render. Renderer's should not dictate how people tag. Please try to be more constructive, and less aggressive when replying in the future. Ben 00:30, 12 July 2007 (BST)

How to suggest something?

I wonder how I am supposed to tag a Kindergarten/Playschool/Nursery/daycare? Balu 02:52, 16 September 2007 (BST)

  • I've been tagging them amenity=preschool in the absence of other suggestions/proposals/standards but it would be nice if someone proposed something and got it approved. Karora 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that many visitors with features to suggest don't know the procedure or don't want to follow it (I for one don't want to participate on a mailing list). Perhaps we could have an area on this page or maybe on the Proposed features page where people can just plain suggest a feature. Other folks, who care, can enter it in the right place or start a discussion on the mailing list (if it tickles their fancy). I got to this point because I want to know how to code red-light cameras, speed cameras, and radar traps. I suppose I could use the hazard tag, but a standard method would be more useful. Muir

  • Yeah. The mailing list is kind of daunting. It seems to get a zillion messages a day, but if I want to cut to the chase and discuss a new feature I feel it will be lost in the noise. Meanwhile the wiki has perfectly adequate features around watchlists and discussion pages that don't require me to parse all that noise just to hear the one conversation that I am interested in. Karora 10:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Catagories can do good use for this. We can wor this into the template page somehow to add the correct catagory via the status of the proposal. Also see Proposal Page test --Nickvet419 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Using a template to populate the proposal page

  • I think this is a good idea for people making proposals to use a template on their page that would populate the proposal page, if that can be done. --Nickvet419 22:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Proposal_Page

Proposal Page test --Nickvet419 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Auto-generate table of proposed features

What appears to be needed is a way to autogenerate the various tables. Has anyone investigated whether Mediawiki supports this? The table should be generated from pages that include Template:Proposal Page, or from all pages in a category, such as Category:Proposed features "Proposed". So far, I haven't found a way to do this. Anyone? Robx 11:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this in unmodified wiki, but there is a nice extension Semantic MediaWiki which can be used for that. --Jttt 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That looks great, thanks! I'll look into whether it's a possiblity for this wiki. Robx 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Some related discussion at User_talk:Harry_Wood#Semantic_Mediawiki. Robx 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Proposed_features"
Personal tools
recent changes