Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 04.02.2019 13:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: [...] If the thing makes sense, sooner or later you will get the numbers to mark it "de-facto" even without any voting or tagging maliing list interactions. Which are the numbers for "de-facto" and for "in use"? I couldn't find any documentation

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

sent from a phone > On 5. Feb 2019, at 15:35, Hufkratzer wrote: > > I don't think that a key/tag must have reached the "de-facto" limit before it > can have its own wiki page in the key/tag namespace, otherwise it would not > make sense that the templates KeyDescription and ValueDescripton a

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features > until they become de-facto. I think this is sensible. A tag page with 'in use' status is confusing because it can give the impression that this tag is de facto u

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:26:03PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Usually, they "old" proposals get archived (has 2 benefits: they will not > be modificable any more, and it will be less easy to confuse them with > current tag definitions). > > I am interested in your opinion on this case, wh

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 06/02/19 07:23, Markus wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features until they become de-facto. I think this is sensible. A tag page with 'in use' status is confusing because it can give the impressi

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:20 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features > until they become de-facto. In use means at least one occurrence. > > There is also “rejected” among the possible status values, I don’t think you > suggest to c

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard wrote: > Please have look at the list of pages and raise your voice if there is > anything > that doesn't appear like a clear case for deletion for you. Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed! I hadn't seen it before, and it's hilarious! (Unless we have a

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent > the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist. > Someone else insists that betas are really just another kind of bees. > A third person insists that th

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

+1!! :-) On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed! I hadn't seen it before, and > it's hilarious! > > (Unless we have a rule that the Wiki shall be devoid of the least > indication that mappers have a sense of humour...) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cry

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

Another +1 That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to be labeled for deletion. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed > On Feb 5, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > +1!! :-) > > On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Oh, plea

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: > Another +1 > > That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to be > labeled for deletion. > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed just do it.. I do not want further edit warring wi

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

done! On 2019-02-05 22:47, Richard wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: >> Another +1 >> >> That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to >> be labeled for deletion. >> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed >

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On 06/02/19 07:59, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny > wrote: The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist. Someone else insists that

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 06:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > This is a scenario in which, as far as I can tell, Mary and Mike have > done everything right, but the community has failed them. Which of > these likely outcomes is the 'least worst'? > Thanks Kevin, unfortunately you've summed up fairly well

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is > great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) > members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call > contribu

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:56 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is > great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) > members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call > contri

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 23

>. Another insists that before betas can be mapped, we need a whole taxonomy of Greek letters, LoL! Actually, you would also need the Albanian variations of the Greek alphabet to accommodate place names, just to be thorough. :-) Michael ___ Taggin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 24

> A 'top-down' process where some > data analyst or small team prescribes the tagging would no doubt have > resulted in a tidier and more consistent model - but it would likely > have let to a more limited one, with less mapper engagement. Moreover, > it would have embodied the cultural assumptions