On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an
abstention.
Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
on a
On 06/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an
abstention.
Indeed, it may
On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on
[tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact
mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a
policy that
On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an
abstention.
Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the
proposal.
It'd
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:41 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the
proposal.
It'd
On May 6, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
The full expression of that might be the concept of a community of people who
edit things like I edit. If I start editing campgrounds for example,
perhaps the editor shows a chat window open to other people editing
No, not everybody is against mechanical edits, not even a majority.
pretty hard to tell when not all mappers were questioned or bothered to
reply, not ?
please do not try to draw such conclusions without hard numbers. it does
not help your cause for mechanical edits.
regards
m.
On 5 May 2015 at 13:35, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
No, not everybody is against mechanical edits, not even a majority.
pretty hard to tell when not all mappers were questioned or bothered to
reply, not ?
If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an
Hi,
On 05/04/2015 01:07 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
The problem is that there is a very vocal minority against mechanical
edits, and that minority is of the opinion that a majority cannot
approve mechanical edits if there is a minority that disagrees.
I think that if the majority of people
On 4 May 2015 at 05:23, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
The problem is that everybody is so strong against mechanical edits that it
is pretty much impossible most of the time
No, not everybody is against mechanical edits, not even a majority.
The problem is that there is a very vocal
When it comes to deprecated and obsolete tags I basically feel that
if you can't get enough worldwide consent to re-tag
The problem is that everybody is so strong against mechanical edits that
it is pretty much impossible most of the time. And manual retags are
often not worth the time.
In
On Monday 27 April 2015, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think that is wrong to colour-code the whole box red for
deprecated feature, for the usual reason - it only takes a handful
of people to deprecate something and this could easily lead to
widely used tags being shown in red, leading people to
On 29/04/2015 4:30 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
+1 that there's a problem here of the wiki pretending to be more than
it it is. Xxzme's bold edits often exacerbate that.
--
When it comes to deprecated and obsolete tags I basically feel
that if you can't get enough worldwide consent to re-tag,
On 04/27/2015 01:26 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I'm finding myself in a little edit war with user Xxzme on the wiki
(is there a club?) over my objection to the use of the colour red for
tag description boxes that describe tags with the any of the following
statuses:
Can we also reject a
+1 that there's a problem here of the wiki pretending to be more than it
it is. Xxzme's bold edits often exacerbate that.
--
When it comes to deprecated and obsolete tags I basically feel that if
you can't get enough worldwide consent to re-tag, the tags are not really
obsolete or deprecated.
Hi,
I'm finding myself in a little edit war with user Xxzme on the wiki
(is there a club?) over my objection to the use of the colour red for
tag description boxes that describe tags with the any of the following
statuses:
discardable
deprecated
obsolete
inactive
abandoned
rejected
I think
I agree with Andreas that the current colour of defacto is misleading.
In fact, most current colours could be improved, and it would be a good idea
to turn off colour-coding until a consensus has been reached (since it
affects the whole goddamn wiki).
And please, let's not colour-code the whole
I don't think it's such a bad idea, what annoys me more is that defacto
is beige, when most tags are bascially on the same level as apporved and
should be green.
I think marking those listed red is somewhat helpful. Maybe we should
rather have a tag status like disputed, which can be used
Am 27.04.2015 um 20:14 schrieb Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de:
Maybe we should rather have a tag status like disputed, which can be used
when there is no clear agreement to prevent abuse.
we might end up with a lot of disputed tags if the bar is set too low, I'm a
bit reluctant to a
19 matches
Mail list logo
