24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 01/03/11 17:12, Richard Mann wrote:
24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap
2011/3/1 Richard Mann :
> 24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
The RFC is from 2009, IMHO there is an established alternative for this:
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
horse=designated
You count 24000
On 03/01/2011 11:30 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
do we really need a duplication in designation? Or is there some
details that I don't get?
As I understand it, while there is some overlap (especially in Germany)
it’s not exactly a duplicate of the access=designated tag.
Designation=* is us
2011/3/1 Alex Mauer :
> For better or worse, in Germany it looks like they’re one and the same
> thing: a route’s official classification is basically “officially designated
> for [xxx] traffic”. There’s nothing like the UK’s “Restricted Byway”
> classification.
There is tracks for instance, wh
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> There is already 2 alternative ways to tag these (path and
> foot/cycle/bridleway), I feel we don't need a third one.
Do try and keep up. This is not a third way of tagging. This is _additional_
information that can be used with either existing scheme. There is no oth
On 1 March 2011 20:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> There is already 2 alternative ways to tag these (path and
>> foot/cycle/bridleway), I feel we don't need a third one.
>
> Do try and keep up. This is not a third way of tagging. This is _additional_
> information that
Markus Lindholm wrote:
> If this tag designation is about formal status in the UK
It isn't. It's about formal status, full stop. You could just as easily use
it to record that a European waterway is UNECE Class Vb.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feat
On 1 March 2011 20:51, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Markus Lindholm wrote:
>> If this tag designation is about formal status in the UK
>
> It isn't. It's about formal status, full stop. You could just as easily use
> it to record that a European waterway is UNECE Class Vb.
Well, the wiki certainly
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Markus Lindholm wrote:
> > If this tag designation is about formal status in the UK
>
> It isn't. It's about formal status, full stop. You could just as
> easily use it to record that a European waterway is UNECE Class Vb.
>
> R
You'all are welcome to:
1) Make another proposal
2) Vote yes or no to the proposal as it stands
It's not appropriate to fine-tune the proposal during the voting stage
- you either approve or oppose it as it stands.
If there's an appropriate majority after 2 weeks, I'll move it to
"approved". Oth
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:47:04 +
Richard Mann wrote:
> If there's an appropriate majority after 2 weeks, I'll move it to
> "approved". Otherwise we'll just carry on waiting for a better idea
> (it might be a long wait).
Appropriate majority on the wiki of how many votes?
With the tagging number
On 03/01/2011 03:14 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
Appropriate majority on the wiki of how many votes?
With the tagging numbers being in their thousands, how will you decide
on an appropriate number?
Well, the wiki says “8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a
majority approval”
But t
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:47:04 +
> Richard Mann wrote:
>
>> If there's an appropriate majority after 2 weeks, I'll move it to
>> "approved". Otherwise we'll just carry on waiting for a better idea
>> (it might be a long wait).
>
> Appropria
2011/3/1 Richard Mann :
> You'all are welcome to:
>
> 1) Make another proposal
> 2) Vote yes or no to the proposal as it stands
>
> It's not appropriate to fine-tune the proposal during the voting stage
> - you either approve or oppose it as it stands.
Comments were requested 2009-06-10. It took
15 matches
Mail list logo
