On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 08:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Both my sons went through the Australian Air Force Cadets
> http://www.aafc.org.au/
>
> It was emphasised that "The Australian Air Force Cadets (AAFC) is a youth
> oriented organisation that is administered and actively supported by the
>
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has been
> pointed during voting or RFC.
> I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone
> who took time to make things better.
At the very
On 04/02/19 21:04, Hufkratzer wrote:
Somewhere (I don't know where it was) I read that a new tag has to be
used about 100 times before it can be documented on an a new wiki page
in the key/tag namespace.
100 looks like an arbitrary number.
Very easy to achieve with common things , like
Hi
Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has
been pointed during voting or RFC.
I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone
who took time to make things better.
All the best
François
Le lun. 4 févr. 2019 à 17:52, OSMDoudou <
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:05, Hufkratzer wrote:
>
> [...] If we allow that everyone can create a new wiki page in the key/tag
> namespace for a tag that is used only twice and list this tag on the *main*
> features page the will become next to useless for the occasional user.
+ 1
Past proposals constitute knowledge which can serve later on for a new
proposal. If it would be total crap, it would better be delete it to avoid it
serves as bad model. But if it’s half good, it can be a baseline of what was
learnt, what was disputed, what needs improvement, etc.
I have come across this issue too.
I realize that in some countries, they have signals and roads and full blown
intersections just for bikes, but many cycling roads in Japan:
A) dead-end onto footways, not roads, as the ways are often treated as footways
with a special designation for cycling
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, where 2 users (so far) are
for the wholesale deletion, while 3 have demonstrated
Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :
> While i agree on this particular case your distinction can be easily
> misread to mean that mappers must not invent new keys or that they have
> to write a proposal for them.
>
writing a proposal _is_ documentation, and I cannot
On Monday 04 February 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> * invent keys - ok
>
> * document widely used/established keys that never went through a
> proposal process - ok
>
> * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or
> established - questionable
>
> * the whole thing done by
Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 01:45 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :
> On Monday 04 February 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > But creating such a page or adding such tags to map features overview
> > pages is misleading when there is basically no or very few usage.
> > These tags should be
On 04.02.2019 08:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
* invent keys - ok
* document widely used/established keys that never went through a
proposal process - ok
* invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or
established - questionable
* the whole thing done by someone who has in the past
On 04.02.2019 10:27, Warin wrote:
On 04/02/19 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all
right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without
creating a proposal.
* invent keys -
On 04/02/19 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all
right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without
creating a proposal.
* invent keys - ok
* document widely
14 matches
Mail list logo
