On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are
approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes
(15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
2. Having said this, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that people who currently actively oppose the proposal have not
participated in a 4-month discussion, where most of the current
concerns were
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
7. Personally, I believe drinking_water=* is a much better solution
than amenity=drinking_water:
7.1) The source of drinking water (which, I fully agree, is important
for a lot of users) may not be a dedicated
On 2015-01-17 at 01:03:05 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was
not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails
from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but
couldn't find anything. Does
have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as
spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam
folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at
least for a while.
Yes, I have and do it regularly. Also the all mail folder,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are
approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes
(15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with
clean
So what is the solution ?
amenity=non_drinking_water ?
It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be
able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general tagging
scheme for water sources.
regards
m.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieren
I don't get how amenity=drinking_water is a problem. It is just a tag with
a wider meaning. man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes is a special type
of amenity=drinking_water, as is natural=spring+drinking_water=yes or
some other combination.
___
Tagging
As for newcomers, I think editors like iD should hide the intricacies of
the tagging system anyway. If you click drinking water it puts
amenity=drinking_water. But then it offers you all types of drinking
water, like a tap, a spring, bottled water in a vending machine, a hose, a
well and if you
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
amenity=non_drinking_water ?
Or amenity=non_drinkable_water + a subtag describing the object
It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be
able to change this tag, although it obviously
I didn't follow every bits of the discussion, so sorry for
interrupting. Sorry also if my proposals are out of scope or already
reviewed. Maybe a fresh view can help.
@Marc amenity=drinking_water // amenity=non_drinking_water
It feels like a good start and compromise.
Either can be associated
I don't think the drinkable quality of water should be the prime criteria
to tag water sources (or a reason to use amenity=*)
A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either
the water is drinkable or not.
This data should be introduced with a tag drinkable=yes/no or any
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, François Lacombe
fl.infosrese...@gmail.com wrote:
A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either
the water is drinkable or not.
Here you join the other thread about philosophy of tagging. Some
people describe an object, others
It seems that Pieren and I agree on most points.
@François
Maybe drinkable water is a very special case... but here service/use
is much more important than object/feature. The ability to find this
water on a map or from any data consumer is useful. It can even be
essential to many people from
Hi all,
1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was
not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails
from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but
couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) The last email I saw
was Warin's
Dear all,
As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are
approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes
(15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with
clean up.
I appreciate all the discussion and help from your side (it was my
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting
period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a
close.
-1. Why would it be too late ? It is not because a small group of
On Jan 14, 2015 5:53 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the
commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is
coming to a close.
-1.
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 10:45 +1100, Warin wrote:
used it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using
amenity=drinking_water with portable=no ... I'd like it changed to
[...]
portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/
Minor correction: potable, not portable.
--
Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com
Am 13.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb François Lacombe:
2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
mailto:kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.
Have you also voted at
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
I voted earlier today 'no' to this proposal in its current state and
provided my arguments. But now I'm asked to forward them on this
mailing
2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.
Have you also voted at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
?
Yes, as Fanfouer
I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency
On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren
pier...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal -
Voting - Water tap Message-ID
Hi Kotya,
Thank you for this proposal and for the work around to complete it.
In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of
lack of consistency with many other tags.
Such water taps may be part of larger networks with many kind of features.
Building a proposal for
24 matches
Mail list logo
