Proposal talk:Bench: Tag capacity, even if no separation

Unclear; there are more than two ways to map

- Which is clearly visible even from your examples which use "or" word in description what would happen if accepted. It is even mentioned at some places (but not others) with "(seats or capacity to be discussed later; not now)"

Yet when one should use "seats" instead (or in addition) of "capacity" is the crux of the matter to decide, it makes it confusing to determine what is exactly being proposed.

- Also, Outlook sections missed basics of boolean algebra - if there are 2 bits, there are 4 possible outcomes. Yet, only 3 are mentioned (The missing one is "both proposals gets approved"). It is one of the reasons why making two opposing proposals to determine the outcome of something is an ill-advised idea.

This problem is exacerbated by proposals not necessarily being voted on by the same people (some may vote only on one) and by acceptance criterium having values different than 50%, thus being biased toward one side. If you were to only propose Proposed_features/Bench:_Do_not_tag_capacity_if_no_separation (with explanation and pictures), the problem would not be there.

- Scenario A says it means "Current practice approved", but it is unclear what is meant there? As it is clearly impossible to know what the millions of mappers intended when they mapped something, especially with existing seemingly confusing (judging by amount of different opinions) tagging schemas. Of we might try to find if there is consensus on meaning of current wiki documentation maybe (i.e. "current practice of interpreting the seats=* and capacity=* wiki definitions)?

--Mnalis (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Basics of boolean algebra: Note that it is beyond the scope of this proposal whether seats=* or capacity=* should be used for capacity.

This point was about you having explained 3 possible scenarios (A,B,C) while completely ignoring 4th possible scenario (i.e. what happens if "(D) both proposals gets approved"). Do you intend to mention and document what happens if that 4th (currently undocumented) scenario happens? --mnalis (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Current practice approved" means current practice (of tagging capacity on benches without separation) approved. It does not say "current intentions approved."

--Martianfreeloader (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

But how do you know that "tagging capacity on benches without separation" is "current practice"? I do not know that (and I don't have any idea how I could find out with any certainty, only by pure guessing). I can only see that seats=* is used two orders of magnitude more than capacity=* on amenity=bench. My guess (and mapping practice) would be that most people tag capacity only on segregated benches, while using seats when guessing for non-segregated benches. If others are of similar reasoning, than your assumption that "current practice is tagging capacity on benches without separation" (and all that follows from that premise) is completely wrong. --mnalis (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by this:

Which is clearly visible even from your examples which use "or" word in description what would happen if accepted. It is even mentioned at some places (but not others) with :"(seats or capacity to be discussed later; not now)"

Can you rephrase this in other words? --Martianfreeloader (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at examples table. In column titled "Tagging, if proposal gets approved" (and "Tagging if the opposing proposal gets accepted") you use the word "or" (for example "amenity=bench + seats=4 or amenity=bench + capacity=4". Using word "or" in examples is to be avoided at all costs; the whole point of having examples (i.e. exact cases) is to have exact explanation for them. By using the word "or" makes the matter even more muddied, because offering multiple outcomes it is exact opposite of being precise. Especially when the whole topic is distinguishing between seats=* and capacity=*, and you appear to use them interchangeably!

On the related note of confusing proposal, I would absolutely advise against using word "capacity" when discussing any subject involving the OSM tag capacity, because people will get confused about which one are you talking about (the English word or the OSM tag name) (e.g in sentence "It is correct to tag the capacity of a bench, even if there is no functional separation into individual seats" and other places -- "tag the capacity" might mean what "capacity" means in English language, or it might mean using OSM tag capacity=* - which is something very different). Please use some other word instead of "Capacity", or even better use a longer phrase instead on one word; and when meaning to talk about the OSM tag always use the explicit tag link like capacity=* --mnalis (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't get the point of this one, either:

acceptance criterium having values different than 50%, thus being biased toward one side

What is being biased? And toward which side? --Martianfreeloader (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Voting process is biased. As you noted, when voting comes, one needs 75% supermajority of "yes" votes. So, "no" votes carry higher weight, and if there is equal number of "yes" as "no" votes, the proposal will fail - thus the proposal process is biased toward proposals failing. So if you have multiple interconnected proposals (like here), if there is mostly equal distribution of "yes"/"no" votes, the most likely scenario is "Scenario C: None of the proposals gets approved". --mnalis (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)