On 3/18/2015 2:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us
the process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of
it must be stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include
a tag as part of the standard rendered OSM
I would assume that in this phase of the OSM lifecycle most new tags would
start in specialist renders. For example I expect that the current
discussion about campgrounds camp_site=* leading to different types of
campgrounds would be rendered in specialist renders for camping first and
would be
On 19/03/2015, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:
Requiring an accepted proposal plus good documentation sound like a
reasonable policy. I would probably add, that the tag is sufficiently used,
and/or be very desirable.
Note that actual use is far more important than documentation.
I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is currently a
discussion going on, whether the current voting system for voting proposals
should be changed.
This is the discussion so far:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/22969
Cheers,
Martin
On 18 March 2015 at 21:43, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:
Paul,
Since you are involved with updating the rendering, can you tell us the
process to decide what should be rendered? I realize that part of it must be
stylistic, but what outside influences cause you to include a tag
On 19/03/2015 2:44 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen
i...@matthijsmelissen.nl mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
the rendering, and there is currently no consensus
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl
wrote:
As far as I know, we don't have a policy on which tags to include in
the rendering, and there is currently no consensus within the
development team on what the best policy would be. Personally I'm
trying to
On 3/18/2015 2:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd like to point to the tagging mailing list, where there is
currently a discussion going on, whether the current voting system for
voting proposals should be changed.
Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate
a
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
Just as a clarification, this is for voting on what it takes to indicate a
tag is approved on the wiki. It is not about if a tag is approved for use,
as there is no such thing.
No approval is needed to create a new tag, to
I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949
I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I believe
that RFC and voting-announcements should go to
On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949
I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I
Martin wrote:
I cannot remember that there was any discussion about this. I
believe
that RFC and voting-announcements should go to [talk], while
[tagging]
is for discussions about tags and tagging schemes.
Perhaps I'm a bit jaded at the moment, but I think [tagging] is a
better choice. If
2010/9/1 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
On 01/09/2010 17:12, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I just noticed that someone changed some time ago the rules for voting.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_featuresaction=historysubmitdiff=424831oldid=422949
I cannot remember
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer I agree to this,
but the name isolated_dwelling was the translation
I finally found (neither in wikipedia nor in the dictionary) for the
German scientific term Einzelsiedlung, which describes the smallest
entity of human settlements (below
to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:13:32
To: m...@koppenhoefer.com
Cc: osmtalk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting for place=isolated_dwelling is open
2010/5/5 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
2010/5/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Sub-hamlet?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=subhamletmeta=aq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai=
9,600 hits
2010/5/5 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
In English usage, a dwelling is a residence. So, a farmhouse would be an
isolated dwelling; a building not used as a residence, such as a restaurant
or train station, would be an isolated building, but not an isolated dwelling.
sorry, I wasn't
2010/5/5 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
Since the English language defines a dwelling as a place where someone
dwells, I suspect that the UK government is using the term to mean structures
used as residences. The proposed tag, on the other hand, would classify any
isolated building
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Sub-hamlet?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=subhamletmeta=aq=faqi=aql=oq=gs_rfai=
9,600 hits
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Cool, did you
notice the first link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_hierarchy
That kind of settles it, really.
Note that when the Wikipedia article was first created, the lowest-level
settlement was called Lone Farmhouse. It was changed
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Note that when the Wikipedia article was first created, the lowest-level
settlement was called Lone Farmhouse. It was changed to Isolated dwelling
on 14 September, 2006.
See the comparison of the contents before and
2010/5/4 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
Towns and hamlets are usually incorporated in one form or another,
isolated buildings aren't, in any case you can tell how isolated a
building is by comparing features around it, you don't need to
explicitly say it's isolated.
I agree to this,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
please vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
Err... Aren't those called houses?
No. Houses don't generally have names, they have numbers. This
proposal is
On 4 May 2010 13:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Houses don't generally have names, they have numbers. This
Rural properties in Australia, even those close to towns, often have
names... Even if the rural renumbering scheme has also given these
places numbers... Houses located
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
yes, it could be houses. It could also be a cave or a tent, but mostly
it will be houses. This is a term for settlement classification, not
about building types.
Well, OK, but you did use the term 'households'
Why not use the standard landuse=residential?
2010/5/3 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Well, OK, but you did use the term 'households'
Why not use the standard landuse=residential?
Because this is about place and not about landuse. I understand place
as a tag for human settlements which vary from very small
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
please vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
Err... Aren't those called houses?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2010/4/29 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
please vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
Err... Aren't those called houses?
yes, it could be houses. It could also be a cave or a tent, but mostly
it will be houses. This is a
please vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/isolated_dwelling
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2009/9/17 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net:
Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importancediff=16oldid=333013
Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to '''Yes'''
and similar change was made for no votes.
actually I don't see
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
2009/9/17 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net:
Here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Highway_key_voting_importancediff=16oldid=333013
Appearance of the page was not changed, {{vote|yes}} was changed to '''Yes'''
and similar change was made for
The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for
highway-definition here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_key_voting_importance
I suggest to not delete already given votes as they still represent
voter's opinion, even if voting wasn't officially opened.
cheers,
Martin
I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should
those votes be recast?
On Wednesday 16 September 2009 09:46:16 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for
highway-definition here:
2009/9/16 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net:
I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should
those votes be recast?
who changed them?
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
dieterdre...@gmail.com -
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Subject: [OSM-talk] VOTING for general highway-definition
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:46:16 +0200
The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for
highway-definition here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki
Deal all,
voting is opened:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/geological=palaeontolog
ical_site
Best regards
Marcello B.
Proposal-RFC Start: 2009-08-12
Deal all,
voting is opened:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/paleontological_site
Best regards
Marcello B.
-
( proposed: Sun Jul 19 )
Hi all,
I'm trying to get a definative answer for all the tags.
So far so good. :-)
it looks like its unanaimous that the 'canvec:description' tags get removed.
So thats cool, its not that hard to remove those tags. :)
Any comments about the other tags, why they should be removed or kept?
Im
Cool :)
(I cc'd OSGeo NRCan, so their in the loop too.) Decisions here means a
addition or subtraction of about a Gig or so of data.
So this is why i stopped uploading. Would have been nice to have heard more
voices from the start, lol.. or maybe i wasn't listening .. lol
I'm looking back at
In my opinion, the only data that should be imported as tags on geographic
features in the OSM database is the data in the OSM Tags column on the
Buildings and structures page. The other columns of data should not be
included as tags.
- The data in the Canvec Feature column is a duplicate of the
2009/6/20 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com:
In my opinion, the only data that should be imported as tags on geographic
features in the OSM database is the data in the OSM Tags column on the
Buildings and structures page. The other columns of data should not be
included as tags.
Out of the
Out of the Buildings and structures page, yes, there is however
more useful information in CanVec that I think has a place in OSM
too, beside the obvious (name, name:fr, etc) on the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec_OSM_Map_Features#Attributes_common_to_all_entities
page.
Yes,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mtb:scale
The voting period is rather long : 3 month, so please take you time. But I
think that's what we lack all the time.
Every month i'll give a sumary here of late changes (if any) and the ongoing
vote result.
As the current dictator
For a bit of history, I have opened the smoothness voting windows for a 3
month period
from 2008-09-20
to 2008-12-20
Because I thought, as pieren also privatly suggested me, that voting and RFC
are just too short perioded
So, in my mind and thought I overcome usual 1 month period with a trade
Can people please have a look at this proposal and vote please?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement
This is modified after the previous proposal threw up comments about
collionions with highway=traffic_signals last time.
As for the Compass directions as
This is a voting request for traffic_enforcement (as no-one seems to know
about it?)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Traffic_enforcement
I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can have it
approved - I for one would find it invaluable. Such an item
Hi,
On 17.10.2008, at 13:46, Tristan Scott wrote:
I'd appreciate if lots of people could go vote on this so we can
have it approved - I for one would find it invaluable.
Then don't wait - just use it. If there is *anything* you find
invaluable, don't wait for others to say they find it too
Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would
be a better scheme to use traffic_enforcement=speed instead of both
highway=traffic_enforcement AND enforcement_type=speed
Now - this isn't my proposal, I'm just rather keen and willing to try to
help.
What's the correct
- Original Message -
From: Tristan Scott
To: Frederik Ramm
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it would
be a better scheme
: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting: traffic_enforcement
Hmm. noting the comments on votes about tag highway it seems that it
would
be a better scheme to use traffic_enforcement=speed instead of both
highway=traffic_enforcement
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 06:40:12PM +0100, Tristan Scott wrote:
* Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation
to the
direction of enforcement
In that case, a relation (no pun intended) would be better.
* On a crossroads/traffic signals (red light camera) where two ways
On Friday 17 October 2008, Tristan Scott wrote:
righto; votes cleared. proposal modified. new vote set in a week's
time.
I'm not keen on the enforcement direction being forwards and
backwards. I can think of examples:
* Common mobile station on a bridge - on a way which has no relation
to
Haven't seen any cases where the same camera covers both
directions of a
dual carriageway, but if it happens somewhere, why not just add
two
nodes on each side?
How about those cases where the camera is between the carriageways
and gets swung around to cover opposite sides at irregular
[...] By all means keep the proposal and RFC parts, and
maybe back them up with TagWatch links.
+1
Regards, Marc
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shaun McDonald schrieb:
In my opinion the voting process is broken, as it can potentially vote
in proposals that will break backwards compatibility and require
extensively more complex processing of the data. Take for example:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Status
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Tordanik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shaun McDonald schrieb:
In my opinion the voting process is broken, as it can potentially vote
in proposals that will break backwards compatibility and require
extensively more complex processing of the data. Take for example:
As there are no new commends in the RFC for a while, I just started the
voting on the platform tag.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/platform
Thorsten
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Voting started on the vending machine proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/vending_machine).
Please do not hesitate to give you vote !
Thorsten
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Hello everyone,
After 1 1/2 month of discussion about tagging the voting for k=highway|
v=emergency_access_point has started.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Emergency_access_point#Vote
wer-ist-roger
___
talk mailing list
Hello,
I was looking for a way to tag surveillance cameras in my city. On the
German mailing list someone pointed me to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Surveillance
a proposal made in December 2006 which didnt make it to the voting process.
Among the suggestions given in
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Bruce Cowan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
election) ?
I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your
local MP and
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sent: 08 April 2008 2:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: OSM-Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Sven,
I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.
Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the
matter is that a number of people seem to think
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:31:02AM +0100, Bruce Cowan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
election) ?
I'm a pedant [...]
Oh, if we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that the British
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/4/9 Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting
our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to
decide who's in power.
On Wed,
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
snip
I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my
suggestion:
* Continue your discussion and voting as before
* Give yourselves a name (OSM Tagging Task Force or whatever) and
create a mailing list.
* Do not
On 09/04/2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most
know that I'm an advocate of the let it evolve approach.
me too. it should evolve - but settling on agreed ways of doing things
does not prevent
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
But honestly, how can you
ever believe that a process run by less than 0.1% of participants in
the project can have any authority?
I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.
I also can't remember that anyone in this discussion has given any
reason or example
Sven,
I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.
Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the
matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make
a decision that is a decision of the project rather than a decision
of those five people who
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my
suggestion:
* [...]
Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't.
While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force
it's no good idea I believe.
Sven Grüner wrote:
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my
suggestion:
* [...]
Okay, slowly I realize that I took all this for granted while you didn't.
While I'm not yet certain wether you seriously propose such a task force
it's
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:57 +0300, SteveC wrote:
Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no
election) ?
I'm a pedant, but you never vote for a Prime Minister. You vote for your
local MP and the leader of the party with the most MPs gets to be Prime
Minister.
--
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several
times.
This is not the first time you use the word sabotage in this
context. I think it's rather strong language; I have openly expressed
my opinion that's all.
I just use the wording that I
Hi,
stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
architecture fame) today. He said:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code.
Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not
the only sane person on earth who
2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
architecture fame) today. He said:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code.
maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all
On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote:
2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
architecture fame) today. He said:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code.
maybe someone
...or as Ken Livingstone said: If voting changed anything they'd abolish it.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:57 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote:
2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
architecture fame) today. He said:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code.
Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not
the
voting has been open on this for 4 weeks. it has now closed, with 4
yes votes, and 1 no vote - the proposal was rejected
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/hov_access
it will be moved to the rejected features page
thanks
___
Hi!
The corresponding RFC is now more than two weeks ago, with no
substantial problems shown up (since it was updated 2007-12-31).
Voting is opened for the next two weeks at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Laundry
Regards, ULFL
this has been around for 8 months now, time to open voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Power_plants
this proposal has two parts: to create the new power=power_plants tag
and make the old man_made=nuclear_power, man_made=solar_power, etc.
obsolete
thanks
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now - over 100 villages in
South Cambridgeshire are tagged. I suspect I not the only one. I am
tempted to say this is a de facto map feature and add it to the list anyway.
I think
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-16 10:47, David Earl wrote:
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now
I do not see any description about the syntax within the proposal - and I
feel that a population has to be
On Jan 16, 2008 11:19 AM, Martin Trautmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-16 10:47, David Earl wrote:
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now
I do not see any description
Martin Trautmann wrote:
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
but you won't know whether this number is outdated by a day, a month or
many years.
Both of these seem to be
Martin Trautmann wrote:
I do not see any description about the syntax within the proposal - and
I
feel that a population has to be accompanied whenever possible by a
valid
date.
Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a
place. Apart from node, way and area this
On 16/01/2008 11:19, Martin Trautmann wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-16 10:47, David Earl wrote:
Irrespective of this proposal, which I hadn't noticed, I've been using
it for all places in my area for some time now
I do not see any description about the syntax within the
Martin Trautmann schrieb:
Thus I feel it is not possible to add a pouplation tag directly to a
place. Apart from node, way and area this would require yet another data
primitive, such as data
Why not KISS (keep it stupid simple)? Like David I've been using this on
dozens of places just by
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-01-17 01:23, Tony Bowden wrote:
Martin Trautmann wrote:
precision could be v={1|10|100|h|1000|k|1|10k|10|100k|100|M|1M}
Whenever you have just a single number, this should be the current value -
but you won't know whether this number is
this proposal has been open for voting for two weeks now. it has been
rejected, with 6 no votes and 3 yes votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Saltmarsh
it will be moved to the rejected features page
i will put together a new proposal for sub-keys to the 'marsh' tag,
this has been open for comments for two weeks now, with no issues
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Turntable
voting is now open, for two weeks
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Already trying to avoid unneccesary mails I herewith inform you about
open voting for two tags:
Links to websites (url=)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Info_on_web-presence
Official phonenumbers (phone=)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Phone
does anyone know what's happening with this tag?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Population
it appears to have been voted on, but it isn't really clear what, the
tags were only added after voting had completed. i think it's rejected
(11 yes to one no), but the last
On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chill out guys,
I'm merely pointing out an interesting anomaly with the current voting
scheme. I don't particularly care if you change it or not. I am not having a
go at you Robin, who are doing a terrific job.
not at all, i didn't
Robin Paulson wrote:
Sent: 14 January 2008 2:41 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] voting closed - swimming_pool
this proposal has been rejected, with 11 yes votes and 3 no votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Swimming_pool
it has been moved
this has been proposed for 2 weeks now, with no disagreements, time to
open voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/crane
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Brent Easton wrote:
Interesting.
If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to
get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it.
In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting
against a proposal once the first No vote is
Brent Easton wrote:
Interesting.
If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes
votes to get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it.
In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by
NOT voting against a proposal once the first No vote is
Ian Sergeant wrote:
This is pretty much what Brent said. The proposal only needs one more No
vote to succeed. Is there anyone out there who doesn't like the proposal,
who can disapprove quickly? We can then move it to Map Features.
Ian.
No, Brent said ...it requires 14 Yes votes to get
On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to
get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it.
In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting
against a proposal once the first
Chill out guys,
I'm merely pointing out an interesting anomaly with the current voting scheme.
I don't particularly care if you change it or not. I am not having a go at you
Robin, who are doing a terrific job.
Cheers,
Brent.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 14/01/2008 at 7:54 PM
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
