On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > Dave Stubbs wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <ascho...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 30 Sep 2009, at 20:46 , Russ Nelson wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, he is a leader because we respect him. THAT is how leaders in >>>>> an anarchic state arise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> yes he is a leader and as such deserves respect. he should lead some >>>> useful and intelligent projects and don't loose a word about this >>>> childish 1/0/yes/no/true/false discussions. >>>> a consumer of the data has to do a bit more work but this is a small >>>> fee for free access to an amazing database. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The discussion is only childish if the tone of the discussion is >>> childish. >>> But if people discuss this issue in a good manner, then it isn't >>> childish. >>> >>> If we can remove that small fee, why not do it? >>> >>> What's so hard about standardizing on the boolean values given >>> appropriate >>> changes to editor presets, good wiki documentation, and a deprecation >>> period >>> for other boolean values? >>> >> >> >> what's so hard? >> The hard part is figuring out what the hell any of this actually has >> to do with the thread topic. >> Amazingly tag-standardisation is not even /relevant/ to the original >> problem pointed out. >> Oh well... wouldn't be the internet if someone wasn't wrong on it. >> > > Did you not read Kyle's post - 29th 15:25
Yes. The original problem pointed out that I was referring to was: "It works for building=yes, but not building=true". Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
