Hello Fernando, I was just advised about this mailing list so have
joined yet another ! (sigh...)
Thanks for pushing this issue, my concern is that people's lives are
potentially at risk here.
While I am not really committed to using tracktype= as the trigger, on
the Austrialian mailing list we
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 22:00 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> A smarter router could even change this preference
> based on weather conditions (under rain, sett gets considerably
> slippery, and dirt would be far less preferable than compacted).
>
I guess that is why I like the use of trackty
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 22:57 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Welcome, David. If you've just been advised about this discussion, you
> may wish to read it from the start:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tags-useful-for-rendering-of-roads-in-poor-conditions-td5791303.html
>
Actually, the particular
This could be a very useful tag - I'm particularly interested in
unsealed and 4x4 roads/tracks, sure you have seen the recent discussion.
We have been trying to massage existing tags for the purpose.
The problem as I see it is that with a wealth of tags everyone chooses
to use different ones. And
OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner.
But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize
where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what
we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ?
If people think its a good idea I co
amily issues...
david
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 17:07 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner.
>
> But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize
> where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying
quot; Wiki" page.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, David Bannon
> wrote:
>
> OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on
> this topic
> to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki
&g
BGNO, you have been following the "Tags useful for rendering of roads in
poor conditions" thread started by Fernando on this same list haven't
you ?
I have created a summary page on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo
We hope to reach a consensus on what seems pretty close to what
I will add on your behalf.
David
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 21:12 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic
> to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is
> welcome to edit it to try and make the choices c
In Australia, we refer to a "dirt road" meaning just about any unsealed
road. Very rarely use "earth" or "ground". Ground sounds to me more like
the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !
We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
through its n
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:11 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Do you all agree with these wiki edits?
>
1. Yes, almost. Not too happy with the term 'stiffness'. Maybe just remove the
term 'stiffness' ?
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes, I guess so ...
However, while a good job Fernando, I still think w
Good on you Dave, I do like a good rant !
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 10:47 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> IMO tracktype should describe the physical
> characteristics of a track, not a highway, and it should have nothing
> to do with "how well maintained" it is.
Great in an ideal world Dave. Ho
esitate to bring this up but the
> discussion about trafficability tried to rationalize the relationship
> between a highway's surface, hardness, composition and smoothness and
> ran into similar problems (David Bannon?)
>
>
> FWIW, borrowing again from Fernando above
Thanks Martin.
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 13:15 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> grade1 is mostly asphalted, (and comprises also heavily
> compacted hardcore with similar characteristics).
You are of course quite right. I was paraphrasing the end user. Sorry.
> Please note that the track type scal
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:02 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),
No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
roads far, far worse tha
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 11:50 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Perhaps what people worry about here is "how soft" the surface is.
Trouble is Fernando, that in many cases the problem is not in fact
'softness', it could be rocks, ruts, slippery, steepness, angle
(left/right) and lots more. The bigges
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:02 +0100, André Pirard wrote:
>
>Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a
>particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road
>classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on
>IGN maps) is very subjective but that
gt; use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough
> sometimes.
>
>
> Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the
> list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the
> things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes
On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 20:55 +0100, vali wrote:
> I agree we should find a tag to note "practicability".
In an ideal world Vali, I'd agree. But we do need to think about all the
roads already in the database. I'd prefer to extend and encourage
greater use of an existing, well used tag if possible.
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 19:05 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies
> in their home countries.
I Australia, 'track' generally means a road that is badly maintained or
not maintained at all. Almost certainly unsealed. Some short and
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:58 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> In my opinion you shouldn't use the osm tags highway=track for
> important connecting roads or tourist roads, even if you call them
> "tracks" in everyday live, and even if they aren't paved. Better
> use the highway tag according t
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 22:31 +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> (Greg) As for style, I mean something as simple as dashed
> casings when unpaved,
> What about countries where 90% of roads are unpaved? That's not going
> to look very nice.
>
>
Janko, I am sure you don't mean to suggest
I am not sure that I like (eg) survey:date
A typical road will have a range of data associated with it, lets try it
-
source=survey
name=blah
highway=unclassified
surface=unpaved
lanes=1
survey:date=2014-06-10
I guess that makes good sense, but what if the initial source was, say,
bing ?
source
:confirmed=yes) if it is still unpaved at a
> later date. And again the change will be tagged with the time and when the
> *:confirmed tag was added or changed.
>
> -Tod
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 5:13 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> >
> > I am not sure that I li
Andre, sorry, I support what you are trying but not quite sure you have
the proposal ready yet. I cannot post to the Belgium list so assume you
see this on "tagging" ?
Can you please give a few examples of how the data would appear ? I
think that might clarify it. In particular, how you will dates
Jesse, you are very welcome !
I have campaigned on this topic a couple of times but without really
achieving any consensus. Chief problem is some people's fear of
'subjectiveness'.
I don't really care exactly how it is done as long as we end up with a
clear model advising people whether or not t
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 06:47 -0700, Rovastar wrote:
> sorry but I don't like having new separate colours for each one.
>
Agree Rovastar, whole new set of colours does not work, mainly IMHO
because the casual user would not know the colour code.
> I think the only way we are going to do this is a c
On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 18:45 +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
Sorry, no. Certainly in Australia and I am sure lots of other parts of
the world, the term 'forest' does not necessarily mean managed or
planted. Most fores
yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but
it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be
expected to sift through all the possible values.
Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a
clear, on/off tag like the proposed an
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 00:23 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
..A good suggestion ...
So it seems that yet again, we are going to reject this attempt to solve
a real problem. Looking at the neg replies, because its not useful for
bike riders; not useful for a number of undefined edge cases; is a
du
Ah, Richard, its very hard to argue with someone who uses XKCD to
illustrate their point, unfair !
But, "no official tags" ? truish. But when I am speaking to someone, I
am free to make up new words and grammar, but should not expect to be
understood. Better to agree in advance.
And yes, bike ri
I am not really sure what this article is trying to say. Like Mateusz, I
object to the line -
... "Important is that every mapper does not only note if the object or
quality he has searched for is there, but also has to note if it is not
there."
There is wide agreement that many objects have def
On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 23:17 +0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> I am writing to propose a new, hopefully more precise and
> self-describing tag for shops that sell electronic parts.
Good move.
David
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectronic_parts
>
__
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 11:28 +1100, Warin wrote:
> What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level?
>
> Are 'we' tagging for
> What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity
I think its a very good question Warin. Perhaps, at the hart of much
angst amongst OSM'er
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 18:07 +0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> Some people in Poland (the ones who never browse community forums)
> maniacally tag every dirt road as highway=track, even if it should be
> residential+unpaved
Thats is a case of "tagging for the renderer" I'm afraid. They do tha
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 09:35 +0300, Никита wrote:
> Well you actually smart person out there. Please query for features
> that support bitcoins or coins as currency
Come on please ! This is getting quite silly.
regexes are a basic part of the *nix and therefore internet world. Sure
they are
On Sat, 2015-01-31 at 14:55 +1100, Warin wrote:
> ... I think the following things should be mapped to add information
> to the map in regards some, mainly commercial, camp grounds that have
> communal kitchens;
Warin, I recently was looking at Tag:tourism=camp_site and thinking it
lacked a lot
ial) camp grounds where you are allocated
a site and must keep you guy ropes in it. But they are not my
favourite !
David
> On 31/01/2015 3:18 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2015-01-31 at 14:55 +1100, Warin wrote:
> > > ... I think the following things should be mapped
Subject Was - RFD Camp ground Kitchens and their fittings
On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 09:47 -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Another one: caravan sites. There's not any way to cleanly
> distinguish one at a state park that, save for the campground host,
> doesn't allow long term stays, to ones that all
On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 15:22 -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
>.
> I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto
> the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/pitch specific tags at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_indi
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 12:24 +1100, Warin wrote:
> I've edited the wiki page on camp sites
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site to include
> links to the tags for fee, shower, laundry, firepit and water tap.
OK, if thats how its done, I have added toilets.
But seems
> amenity=dump_station
OK, I was preparing text for that, I searched for "dump_point" which is
the term used here, nothing. Its something we most certainly need and
could be used as a standalone node or one associated with (eg)
camp_site.
Must make a clear distinction between "waste" and "human w
Good move Warin. At present, this key seems a bit light on for
documentation, no history and little info for any of it children.
Is it an 'approved' key ? Little use.
In the context where this discussion came up, camp_sites, I'd suggest
waste=chemical_toilet is the one we are interested in. The
>> I have never seen the term "chemical disposal point"
No, new term to me too. Must be a UK thing. In Aust, "dump point" rules
and I am a caravanner.
We'll need a list of terms that people might search for, little point in
debating it, clearly everyone will have their own favourite but
"chemic
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 12:58 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Well, dump_point might be a workable compromise and it plays well with
Dave, are we still looking for a name for a new tag when it seems we can
work with whats already there ?
tourism=camp_site
amenity=waste_disposal
waste=chemical_toilet
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 08:23 +1100, Warin wrote:
> The 'amenity=waste_disposal does not look to have been through an
> aproval process ... nor does any tag. The 'approval process' is
> voluntary ..
Not sure I agree there ! There is an approval process, if a key/tag
gets the votes OR its agreed t
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 10:02 +1100, Warin wrote:
...some sensible stuff
Warin, I need to head out now and will look at rest of you questions
later. But one question, how about a 'flatter' approach ?
amenity=dump_point (or dump_station ...)
amenity=dog
amenity=trash_bin
drop the intermediate step
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 13:58 +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Why not tourism=reception_desk? We have tourism=hotel,
> tourism=camp_site, tourism=information, it's only logical to use the
> same key.
>
I think the idea of =reception_desk could be applied much more widely
than just tourism. Commercial
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 11:16 +, Dan S wrote:
> However it occurs to me that it would be useful to have some way of
> indicating _what_ it is the reception for.
In a lot of cases, we'd probably see a larger area mapped as something,
be it caravan park, mine, whatever. Then a single node wit
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 19:31 +1100, Warin wrote:
reasoned arg against (eg) amenity=waste_dog_excrement
Yes, Warin, you are probably right, while a more sensible syntax, it
will be resisted as too big a change.
An alternative might be to declare that (eg) waste=waste_dog_excrement
is on a
On Sat, 2015-02-07 at 17:41 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
...
> "Amenity" is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
> marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious
> choice or there is nothing better.
Well, while I agree that "Amenity" is pretty general, but
amen
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote:
> A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-)
Sigh ... .
OK, its a good solution but before I'd vote for it, I'd like someone to
explain a few things to me -
Firstly, how is rubbish= a better solution than the slight redefinition
of waste
node where the disposal point is is
of value.
rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like
rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ???
Lets see some hands please ?
David
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 08:47 +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote:
.
>
> I'd split the voting up into
.
> waste, collection is the more frequent case.
> waste_collection
Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by
time I responded. Sigh ...
When you say, "split the voting",
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste
David
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 12:00 +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote:
> > .
> > > I'd split the voting up into
> > .
> &
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 20:47 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> Please comment the proposal to add the value intermittent to the key
> power_supply.
>
Jan, good move, just wondering what you mean by 'intermittent' ? Two
cases may need to be enlarged on -
1. Where I live, power goes off, typically due
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:46 +1100, Warin wrote:
...
> though it has no page as yet..
>
True, and given the lack of support, I don't think it is likely to need
one ! Lets drop this proposal.
This particular proposal started when Dave S complained about multi tags
needed but even he is distan
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt
..For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an
RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks.
>
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:39 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> ..
> discussion are resisting it as a top level tag (a
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering
> support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with,
> as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function
> of a place to dump a sewage holding tank.
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 06:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
...
>
> Trying to invent as few new tags as possible the updated proposal
> would become:
> * power_supply=nema_5_15
> * power_supply:schedule= [...] - has syntax as defined for
> opening_hours
> Or
> * power_su
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with:
>1) A strong clear definition
> 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a
> standard icon.
> 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it.
>
OK, then
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote:
> go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=*
>
> -
> To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=*
> based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying
> anything .. possib
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 22:42 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's
> a recycling bin next to a dump station,
> that recycling bin can and should be a different node.
>
Agree.
> The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_d
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:53 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station
> semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place
> type to put waste
>
True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people
use i
Subject renamed for clarity.
* leaving it as it is - easy choice
* Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now.
* Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?)
>> ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:33 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> amenity=elsan_point ?
> While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous.
> or
>
> amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point.
>
Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the
horrid American ones creeping into
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:06 +, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the
> UK is a "Chemical Disposal Point" or CDP.
>
Wow, think so ? As I see it, "dump station" is likely to be recognised
in at least North (and maybe South) America and Austr
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 15:11 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Thus:
> amenity=toilet_waste_dump
> amenity=chemical_toilet_disposal
> amenity=chemical_toilet_disposal_point
> amenity=toilet_holding_tank_disposal
>
Is it fair to say that none of those terms are widely used ? But, yes,
valid. But plea
t; but it is included in the OED nonetheless.
>
>
> Sorry, I just had to respond
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:55 AM, David Bannon
> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:06 +, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> > An alternative description found on camping/caravan
Well done Bryce, I did not realise that there was a 'failed' attempt to
get this through as dumpstation in the past !
The name may not be ideal IMHO but I'll definitely vote for it.
Mind if I add a bit of the recent history, how we arrived at this
proposal ?
David
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:23
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 14:00 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The goal of mentioning Elsan is so someone searching will find it.
> It's an alias.
Do you mean in the context of the suggested "brand=Elsan" ?
I just added a comment to the page questioning this.
>
>
> Dump Stations apply to boats also.
Bryce, given the discussion that took place on the mailing list prior to
you hitting the wiki, maybe its time you (as proposer) started the
clock ?
So, if you declare today start of RFC, two weeks, start voting ?
David
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:23 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> It's clear there'
Warin (and Bryce), would it be appropriate to cross reference this
proposal with the one for amenity=sanitary_dump_station ??
They clearly relate to each other and voters may need to consider both.
Should it be documented how to handle a situation if both get up ?
While Bryce's proposal covers a
On Sat, 2015-02-21 at 23:55 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Over here, there is a clear difference between recycling containers
> and waste bins.
>
> Don't think it would make mapping easier, as I said I already think of
> recycling vs. waste, so looking for recycling under waste is not
> natural
Jan, I am afraid I would have to disagree. Reading your text, the
distinguishing feature seems to be the fee ? Here in Australia, there
are very many camp sites, often reasonably formal ones that don't charge
a fee.
They typically don't provide a lot of facilities but are very popular
with carava
I agree with Jan in that a small set of (universally acceptable) values
would make the proposal more attractive. Can we identify a few that can
be bundled in ?
Ones that won't annoy those who lurk silently until voting time ?
David
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 06:22 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> Warin
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The current wiki vote guidelines read:
>
Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
details.
> Consider instead this wording:
> There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes.
Too subjective ! (Finally, I
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> ..
> 8 or more unanimous approval votes.
> 16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
> or abstaining.
Interesting to consider the current state of reception_desk proposal,
some
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 10:44 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> There are all kinds of buildings we map that are completely private (houses,
> for example), yet are visible from publicly accessible places.
>
OK, so perhaps we need to tag only those private toilets that are
completely visible from public
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 01:52 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Do people agree with a purge or retag of home toilets that can be
> mechanically identified?
Yes, I guess so. I hate the idea of removing data but honestly, this
data has no place there. Could be quite a task. Is this something that
can be
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:36 -0700, jgpacker wrote:
>We should try to look for other systems, such as Loomio [1]
The current approach is, perhaps a touch clunky but its stable and
predictable as a service. Mailing lists and wikis have been around for a
long time. There are almost identical service
Another aspect we need consider is accuracy ? Has the mapper knocked on
the door and said "I'm here to inspect your toilet" ?
Outside, we can see the traditional "outhouse", but we have no reason to
consider it functional. Inner cities here used to have lanes used by the
"dunny cart man" who too
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well !
I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voting
altogether. Voting does focus the group and as it has a formal finish
date, might (just might) encourage closure.
Bu
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum
> wrote:
> I find it quite hard to find existing proposals,
> perhaps because there are so many abandoned ones.
> * A list of active votes can be found at
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote:
>
> > The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
>
> That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM.
Indeed.
> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contr
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 11:38 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>..
> > Using a tag that is not on the wiki will probably mean it is not
> > rendered.
> rendered where? Many if not even most of the tags that are described
> in the wiki are actually not rendered on the OSM-Carto style.
>
While tru
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 09:35 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>The wiki has a very low correlation to the rendering.
Does it ? Are you suggesting that there is substantial usage of tags
that don't appear on the wiki ? If so, I'd suggest we need to fix the
wiki.
> Rendering is not the only goal of OS
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously
> allowed to vote?
It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and
only being involved to vote 'no' is -
1. Bad manners. And any communit
OK, must assume there is no strong feelings that new values are needed
for smoothness=
We had 3 votes for no change, and only one each for a range of possible
models.
So, lets drop it.
Still leaves us with no way to indicate that one piece of information an
end user is likely to ask, "should I
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 16:58 +, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact
> and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you get
> through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are:
> - no
> - just barely
> - wit
Yep, count me as +1
David
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:04 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point
> was that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for
> accepted/rejected decision was self-contradicting. Even
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> road_usable=car;4x4;mtb
> Tag what's there: measure something. Don't tag an interpretation.
Bryce, please tell us how it should be done then. Don't just sit there
saying "computer says no". A drovers dog can tell this capability
except
gradient.
>
If we can have such a scale for MTB and dirt bikes, why not for four
wheeled vehicles ? Copy the style and approach ?
Incidentally, take a look at where that guy on scale=4 is heading,
crazy !
David
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM, David Bannon
> wrot
I'd suggest a large percentage of mappers are not aware of this list,
or, if aware, do not see it as relevant to them and do not subscribe.
I mapped for many years before subscribing.
David
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 06:08 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> It is amazing to see how few people participat
David
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
> > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
>
> > At grade 6, it's a list of things inc
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 23:16 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
..
>
> And amazing how many people vote, compared to those that take part in
> the discussion.
Indeed. I find that strange. I'd never vote on something I did not have
an opinion on. And, as you lot know, if I have an opinion, I share it
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 07:27 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> - language barrier, please don't forget that not everybody is capable
> to discuss in English. The Belgian mailing list suggest to discuss in
> English (to avoid the French-Dutch-German problem), but we had
> complaints that this limits the pa
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:19 +0100, Andreas Goss wrote:
> ...
> STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
>
> Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody
> else it's just as mess and feels like spam.
Andreas, I don't think email or mailing lists require "tech savy". My 87
year old mo
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:40 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> . would it make sense to change the current proposal/voting
> mechanism like follows?
> - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined
> mathematically if needed), this very page is converted into a feature
> page.
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:09 +1100, Warin wrote:
> I see no point in having a proposal open for voting over 1 year, those
> that want to vote have done so, the proposals voting should be closed
> and resolved.
Hmm, I disagree. Just because the proposal did not get enough votes does
not mean it s
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
