Hi there! It seems the mailing list wants to remove any non-pure text and
appended an extra character when I viewed on the archive, which broke the link.
The link in the thread here works for me when clicking the quoted portion but
ill post again in case others are experiencing similar technical
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 07:27:29PM -0400, thigpen--- via Tagging wrote:
> Please vote on the wiki page in SUPPORT of this proposal:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Move_mailing_list_from_%22required%22_to_%22recommended%22_for_new_proposals
No such link, and a quick search found
Please vote in general.
You are also allowed and encouraged to vote to oppose the proposal if you are
opposed.
(I would advise to keep vote announcement more neutral)
Jul 31, 2025, 01:32 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> Please vote on the wiki page in SUPPORT of this proposal:
>
> Proposal:Mov
sent from a phone
> On 11 May 2025, at 09:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> I do not understand difference between "zebra crossing" and "crossing with
> zebra markings"
> (I know that there is supposedly difference between crossing=zebra and
> "crossing with zebra markings" but
May 11, 2025, 08:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11 May 2025, at 07:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> note that "crossing=uncontrolled" is not for uncontrolled crossings in their
>> common meaning
>> (one more reason to get rid of crossing= key alt
sent from a phone
> On 11 May 2025, at 07:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> note that "crossing=uncontrolled" is not for uncontrolled crossings in their
> common meaning
> (one more reason to get rid of crossing= key altogether)
I thought the common meaning of uncontrolled cro
> lame tag crossing:markings=yes which should be crossing:markings=
I can be (barely) persuaded to mark crossing:markings=yes but I do not care
about
these things to the point of giving specific value
I guess if you consider crossing:markings=yes worse than no tagging at all then
it may make sen
crossing:markings=yes is useful for the frequent cases that the markings do
not correspond to any of your editors presets (frequent here in Italy)
On Sat, 10 May 2025, 14:40 Peter Elderson, wrote:
> LS
> I voted against this proposal. It has merits, but also some aspects I
> don't support, such
Where I am a zebra crossing is certainly not uncontrolled, the markings and
beacons have the same meaning as a give way sign. Vehicles must stop for
pedestrians who are on, waiting to cross or approaching.
Phil (trigpoint)
On 9 May 2025 22:02:23 BST, bauer3--- via Tagging
wrote:
>
LS
I voted against this proposal. It has merits, but also some aspects I don't
support, such as the unnecessary deprecation; the suggestion to use
crossing=uncontrolled where many zebra crossings are controlled crossings;
and the promotion of the lame tag crossing:markings=yes which should be
cross
Hello,
Le 09.05.25 à 23:02, bauer3--- via Tagging a écrit :
Voting has started for "Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of
crossing:markings".
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Deprecate_crossing%3Dzebra_in_favor_of_crossing:markings
As there have been significant changes to the pr
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:44:05 +
Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-11-14 at 03:05 +0100, brecht devriese wrote:
> > Voting has started for virtual_tour=url
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Virtual_tour
>
> This is the first I have seen of this proposal, was there a previous
On Thu, 2024-11-14 at 03:05 +0100, brecht devriese wrote:
> Voting has started for virtual_tour=url
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Virtual_tour
This is the first I have seen of this proposal, was there a previous
email here of a discussion in the forums?
sent from a phone
> On 11 May 2024, at 23:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> If you do, I will appreciate it if you comment in this thread that you did
> crosspost my call for votes on the proposal.
I sent it to the tagging ml
___
Tagging mailing
Dear Tagging Mailing List,
Two weeks have passed and there were only 4 votes cast.
If you haven't voted, I encourage to read through the proposal and vote.
I will extend the deadline by another two weeks.
The new deadline is March 11th
Proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:GTFS_T
People wanted more discussion on this proposal.
I have moved the proposal back to RFC
On Nov 30 2023, at 9:38 am, Zoon van Michiel wrote:
> Voting has started for a GTFS Tagging standard.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:GTFS_Tagging_Standard
>
> The aim of the proposal is to have a
my mistake, it's ok.
Le 16.06.23 à 18:44, wolfy1339 a écrit :
It was posted for the RFC.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2023-March/067118.html
On 2023-06-16 10:01, Marc_marc wrote:
Le 15.06.23 à 16:27, Clay Smalley a écrit :
Voting has started on the proposal to introduce t
Le 15.06.23 à 16:27, Clay Smalley a écrit :
Voting has started on the proposal to introduce the key crossing:whistle=*.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Level_crossing_train_horn_usage
it miss the RFC annoncement on the tagging mailing, so it's invalid and
need restarted at the RFC
Clay Smalley writes:
> Voting has started on the proposal to introduce the key crossing:whistle=*.
I find the "optional" to be strange. Regardless of a "whistles shall
not be blown at this crossing", obviously an engineer can use the horn
at any time if a danger exists. The bit about work crew
Le 07.06.23 à 02:28, Matija Nalis a écrit :
Voting has started on the proposal to deprecate maxspeed:seasonal:winter.
Please vote on the wiki
pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Deprecate_maxspeed:seasonal:winter
RFC start: 2023-05-23
but I don't see any request for comment
May 8, 2020, 18:06 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Phake Nick wrote:
>
>> Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more
>> than what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during the
>> discussion. The only two remotely
The subject of a vote should not be amendable. All the discussions,
debates, consideration of alternatives etc should be BEFORE the proposal
is put to the vote. If a vote fails, THEN the proposal might be amended
and submitted again - but this has to be subject to some time
constraints such as not
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 15:28, Jan S wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The police=* proposal has been unanimously approved by 30 votes. Thanks
> for your massive support!
>
Yay!
> I hope that I'll have the time to change the wiki over the next days.
>
Looking forward to seeing it come online.
Thanks
no one responded on the talk page
28.03.2018, 19:11, "marc marc" :
> Le 28. 03. 18 à 17:51, Александр a écrit :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shop%3Dshotball
>
> it hould be better to rename the url to match the tag change.
> perhaps also that it would have been use
Le 28. 03. 18 à 17:51, Александр a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shop%3Dshotball
it hould be better to rename the url to match the tag change.
perhaps also that it would have been useful to wait for at least one
reaction before voting
sorry, voting time extended until 31 dec (I forgot to announce voting here, but
according to the proposal it was from 1-15 dec and 10 people have already
voted).
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstre
Another reminder :
Vote end: 2017-05-30 (in 4 days)
Cheers,
Thilo
Am 16.05.2017 um 10:28 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Just a reminder: today voting for the aeroway key redefinition is
> starting, please vote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/include_spacecraft_in_ae
There I asked to form a working group for a project like this. Because I
myself don't have the time or capacity to work on this alone. It would
even be better when more people could participate in something like this
On 25.02.2016 22:48, Dominic Coletti wrote:
> I am not literate in German, but I
I am not literate in German, but I think the idea of a dedicated website to
proposal, or at least a tool outside of the Wiki proper would be very
helpful.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:46 PM Hakuch wrote:
> On 25.02.2016 06:57, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > How can we let more people with more different bac
On 25.02.2016 06:57, Marc Gemis wrote:
> 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.
>
just before I read this topic, I started a thread in the (german, sorry)
forum to discuss about a Propos
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. m
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.
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
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
> >>> rejec
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 surprisi
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
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 wi
On 24/02/2016 11:34 AM, 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 ta
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
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:54:55 +
Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 23/02/2016 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against
> > and 4 abstentions.
> > Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional
> > rejection; proposer to m
On 23.02.2016 13:42, Andy Townsend wrote:
> As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already,
you can say my name if you want to :)
> they've
> never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case
> they want to tell _other people_ how to tag things that they haven'
Don't forget it doesn't really matter if the tag is jewelry or
jewellery. It's about having a uniform way of tagging. Who would vote
against that, I wonder? And if both values are currently considered
equivalent in OSM, changing existing data from one spelling to another
does not change the value o
On 23/02/2016 12:32, markus schnalke wrote:
Aren't the ones who vote those who care for what the actual
tagging is?
As we've seen in at least one answer in this thread already, they've
never actually mapped one but do "care about tagging" (i.e. in this case
they want to tell _other people_ ho
[2016-02-23 11:54] Andy Townsend
> >
> > It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and
> > 4 abstentions.
> > 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 a
And how much of 1100 mappers would really be interested ine the spelling
of the word? Only beacause you map something, doesnt mean that you care
about the tagging, me for example never tagged a jewelry (or jewellery
:)) shop, but I did care about the proposal.
So, of course, its a pitty that only
On 23 February 2016 at 12:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people who
> voted".
>
> Taginfo reckons objects with the key "shop" were last edited by 105 030
> different users, and there are 1,976,690 shops, of which 20,851 are jewelry
> and 2
On 23/02/2016 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and
4 abstentions.
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
On 23 February 2016 at 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal
> proceduce to change the way we count the votes? How was this procedure
> introduced?
>
> Example, the current jeweller voting:
> Voting closed
> Voting on this proposal
ok I don't have a neutral opinion on this proposal, but I think
especially here, if you want to change 20.000 tagged objects, it should
be three quarters.
On 23.02.2016 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal
> proceduce to change t
Am Montag, den 20.02.2012, 20:11 + schrieb Chris Hill:
> On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
> >> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
> >>
> >> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are
>
Hi Chris,
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 15:53 + schrieb Chris Hill:
> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
>
> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people
> are free to use *any* tags they like.
>
> There are no such things as deprecated tags, tagging
* John F. Eldredge [2012-02-19 14:13 -0600]:
> I take it, then, that there are some watercourses tagged as streams, but
> named XXX River, and there are some watercourses tagged as rivers, but
> named XXX Stream or XXX Creek?
It's what I've done, based on my understanding of the tag documentation
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> - Approval does not imply enforcement. I don't know why you'd think
> that. Just because we have rules doesn't mean anyone particularly
> "enforces" them.
You can always claim that every one is free to use his own rules. But
once a tag is
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
> No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags,
> sometimes with mass edits.
IMHO that doesn't follow at all. If people are doing unwanted mass
edits, then we should find a way to discourage them. The solution is
not
On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are
free to use *any* tags they like.
...
Advertise your ideas and encourage ac
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
>
> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are
> free to use *any* tags they like.
...
> Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g.
> there
> > is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
> > becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
> Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any
> why it is better but don't use a phoney voting process ignored by the vast
> majority as a mandate for action.
Voting is a valuable process. Discussions, while valuabl
On 19/02/12 11:56, Werner Hoch wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett:
The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a
meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do
is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct p
On 19 Feb 2012, at 14:34, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> waterway=riverbank is an alternative way of mapping a waterway=river,
> and can coexist with it.
+1, they are actually an additional way of tagging the extent.
I still remain of the opinion that a river starts at its spring, independent o
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> The wiki says: "For narrow rivers which will be rendered as a line.
> For larger rivers see waterway=riverbank. For really small rivers and
> streams, see waterway=stream." This is ambiguous (reads as if
> waterway=river isn't appropr
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett:
> The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a
> meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do
> is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct people to
> this one.
As soon as th
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there
> is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
> becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
> river)."
> Well, almost a
Am 19. Februar 2012 12:16 schrieb Steve Bennett :
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> Well, almost all rivers start small and become bigger ;-), but despite
>> being small, don't they already start as rivers at their spring?
>
> No, because the OSM definition of 'ri
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there
> is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
> becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
> river)."
> Well, almost all rive
Am 19. Februar 2012 10:47 schrieb Werner Hoch :
> Hi all,
>
> the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never
> formally approved:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway
>
> The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics:
> http://wiki.op
66 matches
Mail list logo
