> it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box
> on the postal operator's website and put my letter there?
outgoing mail boxes aren't listed on the postal operator's website.
As a tourist, if you happen to come across one of these, you are free to
deposit any outgoing
Le 22.10.22 à 15:09, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
sent from a phone
On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to
What is the use of the proposal process then?
Anne
On 22/10/2022 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now
sent from a phone
> On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
>
> Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
> the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
> from site_type to archaeological_type
such a retagging would be a
Hi Andy,
all the existing archaeological sites with site_type would have to be
retagged, if this is approved. I'm not proposing this lightly, but it is
what the people criticising the "_type" suffix want, apparently.
It just occured to me that it would probably also affect histosm.org.
But I
sent from a phone
> On 22 Oct 2022, at 14:16, Marc_marc wrote:
>
> it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box
> on the postal operator's website and put my letter there?
> or is it just a habit that people also put the outbound there ?
if it works reliably, it
On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":
Le 22.10.22 à 00:15, wolfy1339 via Tagging a écrit :
The `amenity=post_box` tag seems to be only for outgoing mail only,
while this handles both incoming, and outgoing mail in one feature,
while the `amenity=letter_box` is for incoming mail only.
How would you recommend this be tagged, as it
The proposal needed the necessary changes, so the vote was stopped and the
article was repaired under the name: Proposed features/evaporation tower &
brine source
I’ve fix issues with brine_source=* tag (better definition) and
tourism=attraction (optional). But the tag name issue came up again, so
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
Hello all,
the proposal for crannog has been rejected with 6 yes votes, 5 no votes
and 2 abstain votes. Thank you all for your input.
This will be followed up shortly with a new proposal.
Anne
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Can people who don't live there post outgoing letters?
If not, I wouldn't use amenity=post_box
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, 23:18 wolfy1339 via Tagging,
wrote:
>
> Hello community!
>
> I have come here to ask some questions regarding the tagging of what we
> call community mailboxes in Canada (where
12 matches
Mail list logo
