John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> It seems reasonable to me that a node simply tagged as a tree, with no
> other information, could be single or not-single, a landmark or not a
> landmark.
>
Again. We are not freely discussing a model to implement in the future. We
have a lot of work already done. And if there is a definition for a tag,
undisputed and unchanged for 4 years, and people use the tag in a fitting
manner, isn't it the most sensible thing to assume that they actually knew
what they were doing and meant exactly what the definition says?
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> From here on, in other mails, you use the German numbers as if they're
> the only numbers.
>
They are the only numbers I have. Do you have more?
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem anyone's mind is being changed at this point, so I'd
> like to second Martin's suggestion that we move to the voting phase.
>
The statistics indicate that between 76% (German evaluation by myself) and
87% (global evaluation by Fabian Schmid) of the users who entered/touched a
node used it according to the current definition in the wiki. It does not
make sense to vote on any change if the actual use confirms the existing
state with a vast majority while the masses of nonconformant nodes come from
only a very small number of users.
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5506870.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
