Which are the initial categories we want to enable? Which communities would they support?

that seems like a reasonable approach

1 Like

I see it differently. One should strive as a distant goal the harmonization of communication and not only Help & Forum integrieten here, but also migrate the mailing lists… With the functionalities of Discourse someone can participate by mail if necessary (who still needs it in the 21st century).

For Poland subforum I would propose giving moderator rights to people holding them at forum.openstreetmap.org .

1 Like

We need to think about channel transitions. In my experience having two channels for the exact same purpose lead to no incentives for people to transition and user/content fragmentation.

If there is a desire for using this Discourse from any mailing list, I suggest that a smooth transition plan with an old-tool retirement date should be considered.

2 Likes

5 posts were split to a new topic: Enabling mailing list mode

The set up of the current forum is not that bad; at least national sub-forums where users can interact in their native language on mostly local topics I prefer a lot.
Some topical fora as cycling, building, geology/geography (English language?) I think okay.
Closed sub-fora for specialist topics (e.g. the Dutch building import forum group); possibly even hidden to non-members I appreciate.

1 Like

Communities category says:

Here we host different OSM country communities

What about communities like public-transport folks, or JOSM? They will be in diffrent category?

1 Like

Hi @kubahahaha I’m moving your question under the existing topic talking about categories.

Yes, those can be different categories, it’s up to the community to decide which themes should have their own category. Usually it’s advised to create a separate category when there are a decent amount of topic traffic about a specific theme.

One option could be to have a “General discussion” category and use tags there, if we see a high amount of topics with a specific tag, then create a category for them. This way we avoid having categories with low or no traffic.

What do you think?

2 Likes

Editors (as JOSM) definitely need a separate sub-forum!

1 Like

Could you explain the benefits compared to using tags for this use case? Intuitively, it seems preferable to tag a question about editing cycle routes with JOSM as josm+cycling+relations instead of having to choose between the cycling and JOSM sub-forum.

Anecdotally, the “editors” sub-forum on forum.osm.org doesn’t work that well and many questions related to editors are being asked elsewhere.

4 Likes

things like “Dutch building import forum group” should not be hidden

hiding should be done only if absolutely needed (moderation handling for example)

1 Like

4 posts were split to a new topic: An off-topic space/category

Hi, all.

Just found my way here, after seeing a mention in the weeklyOSM roundup.

Trying to think of something that will bring value to underrepresented groups. In the UK, for example, this would be covered by the Equality Act 2010. As a starter, would it be possible to have an area where matters could be discussed, regarding the representation of those with Disabilities?

EA2010- Easy read- Easy Read: The Equality Act - making equality real - GOV.UK

So, perhaps have an area named something like ‘Diversity and Inclusion’, potentially with more specialist sub-areas?

The 9 Protected Characteristics:

Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage or civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

Most of the list above may seem irrelevant to traditional mappers, but if we want to innovate, it would be good to have an area for matters to be discussed, as they will potentially turn in to ‘deliverables’.

Many thanks,

Chris
chris_debian
2E0FRU

I don’t think we want to be over-specific, at risk of creating inactive categories. Maybe an umbrella “accessibility” category would be better, and more relevant to OSM?

2 Likes

@Berrely Completely agree :slight_smile:

Chris

1 Like

In paralel with this discussion, I’ve put together a proposal about the process and requirements for requesting new categories, looking for your input and feedback

Maybe we want to use this a way to see how many people request a category here initially and have an organic growth? I think seeing who and why people are requesting categories can inform this discussion.

1 Like

To the two points on tech/software subgroups and HOT, I would see these as possible tags like “tech” and “humanitarian” that can be added to specific topics, as opposed to creating categories. Then as the community grows we can see if tags for specific tools/software are helpful. Definitely starting with less categories and tags will be best in my opinion.

3 Likes

Maybe we want to use this a way to see how many people request a category here initially and have an organic growth? I think seeing who and why people are requesting categories can inform this discussion.

I think this is a very sensible suggestion! Giving people the chance to suggest categories and following more of an organic growth, following the needs of the communities.

Seeing some of the initial topics happening over #communities I see two types:

  • Conversations about a specific country-community
  • General conversations/topics about OSM

I wonder if we might want to see some general OSM conversations happening at the parent category, similar to the conversations that usually take place at osm-talk, or if we want to consider having a “General/Talk” category just for that.

Alternatively we can observe dynamics and decide afterwards. I guess once we agree on the process to request new categories, we’ll see more traffic coming over here.

Is there some reason to not enable “Tagging” section?

(I considered posting here about my RFC for proposal but there is no good place for this)