Jan 3, 2019, 5:13 AM by th...@gmx.de:
> Thoughts ?
> Ideas how to fix that ?
>
Given that "fool" is strongly negative and derogatory any attempts to
improve any situation should not have this word in the title of the thread.
Insulting people is one of the worst possible arguments.
.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 06:23:15PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> As a side note, I find those mails with fancy "scissor" lines hard to read,
> as the actual contribution is hidden somewhere in between.
also breaking threads for every response is a bit too often.
Richard
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 17:24, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> It would help me if you could use the traditional method of quoting with
> '>' symbols, which is often
> supported in mail clients with some syntax highlighting.
>
+1
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing
As a side note, I find those mails with fancy "scissor" lines hard to read, as the actual
contribution is hidden somewhere in between.
It would help me if you could use the traditional method of quoting with '>' symbols, which is often
supported in mail clients with some syntax highlighting.
8X-
Sérgio V. svolk2 at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 4 15:59:48 UTC 2019
As talking on tools, standards and principles, I think what is vital is
to follow "OSM principles":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
*Don't remove tags that you
As talking on tools, standards and principles, I think what is vital is to
follow "OSM principles":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
*Don't remove tags that you don't understand*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
*Do not engage in large-scale "cleanups" without
8X-
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Jan 4 12:29:34 UTC 2019
Hi,
I agree there seems to be a problem here that needs careful discussion &
consideration, but:
On 03.01.19 16:47, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:
> So which ACTION should
Hi,
I agree there seems to be a problem here that needs careful discussion &
consideration, but:
On 03.01.19 16:47, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:
> So which ACTION should we take now ?
> At least those who introduced it should be in charge.
The ACTION should definitely not be you mass-editing things
Even if the tag keys were not propper, you've just removed many specific
information about services that were in the values, such as batteries; brakes;
electrical; inspection; muffler; oil_change.
Without preserving them in any other usefull, or more propper tag if needed.
sent from a phone
> On 3. Jan 2019, at 17:02, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:
>
> Forgot to mention :
> " it follows what `service:bicycle:*` does."
> is not true.
right, on the contrary service:vehicle doesn’t follow what service:bicycle
does, it goes into competition with it
Cheers, Martin
Forgot to mention :
" it follows what `service:bicycle:*` does."
is not true.
And if you introduce a new system,
you should also explain the namespace structure.
And not just create a hard to find "notice"
which isn't linked to from the affected existing tags
8X--
Bryan Housel bhousel at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 04:39:03 UTC 2019We discussed it here on this list last year.
You started the thread even, so you can’t pretend like you "just
realized” it.
I even asked people to update the wiki.
We discussed it here on this list last year. You started the thread even, so
you can’t pretend like you "just realized” it.
I even asked people to update the wiki.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036095.html
Hi all,
just realized there's a "great" new feature in ID editor,
lots of senseless service tags in this format :
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Avehicle%3A
Seems to be over a year ago that someone decided to avoid conflicts
between the "street" and the "car" services :
14 matches
Mail list logo
