Am 14.03.2015 um 12:53 schrieb jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me
jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me:
I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading
other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against
Our voting rules require stating the reason for
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones?
I agree that the current situation looks funny pretty often.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich
Final call for comments on this, please.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do it.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
wrote:
Resubmitting by request of maper Sly:
The edit described at
The reality is that a tag becomes approved once it is adopted by
developers and is used extensively. Voting has its purpose, mainly to weed
out proposals that need more work. As others have said 8 approvals and 7
declines indicate that more work needs to be done. Even if a proposal
receives 8
I've only included those that I thought to be common, not rare.
How are multiple receptions inside a large building used by serveral
companies rare?
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88
___
Tagging
I would say discouraged, but I could see how they make sense sometimes.
Althoug in this case I don't get it, this is what googles gives me.
nameOsaka Station = (Umeda Station)
name: JR West = Osaka Station
name: Yotsubashi Line = Nishi-Umeda Station
name: Midōsuji Line =Umeda Station
Am 14.03.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org:
Agreed, thus the 'barrier' key should only be used if it is a barrier that
stops you.
If it is a 'free-flow' method only, a different description should be found.
for barrier there are already the established values
Can we learn something from this:
http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in
JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live
On 15/03/2015 4:50 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de
mailto:andi...@t-online.de wrote:
Either use a site relation
Then why isn't this in the proposal?
I never envisaged a reception desk that would be off the site. Or
On 15/03/2015 4:44 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes
and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes
There is little point in having a draft, then a comments period if
people are not participating then, choosing to only come forward with a
possibly good idea only in the voting period.
For teh English timid .. there are not many that care about bad English
expression here .. you may get
On Mar 14, 2015, at 4:14 PM, John Willis wrote:
. . .
Also - is there some way to tag if the campsites have a (raised) platform of
some kind for the tents?
There are several camps I can think of - US Boy Scout camps and rent-a-tent
sites in Japan that have somewhat permanent tent
On 15/03/2015 9:29 AM, Andreas Goss wrote:
I've only included those that I thought to be common, not rare.
How are multiple receptions inside a large building used by serveral
companies rare?
In that case, would not then the individual companies have individual
reception desks?
And those
On 15/03/2015 3:37 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout
daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the
campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated
So what about keys like this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4223325/history
With non-English components after the colon. Should these be encouraged?
Discouraged?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones?
+1 on that. Anything without a super-majority clearly needs more
discussion and/or experience. The
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can we learn something from this:
http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
Maybe learn about vehicles.
Not so applicable to hikers.
___
Tagging mailing list
On Mar 15, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/03/2015 10:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not
confused at all with all of the
Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com writes:
Have a peek here to see what residential power lines might look like, if
added to the database:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/37.64529/-118.97450
A few thoughts:
There's a big difference between transmission and distribution.
Those may
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-03-14 21:09:
Am 14.03.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Tom Pfeifer :
Agreed, thus the 'barrier' key should only be used if it is a barrier that
stops you.
If it is a 'free-flow' method only, a different description should be found.
for barrier there are already the
On Mar 14, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Warin wrote:
On 15/03/2015 3:37 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground
inside a National Park. It is a definitely a
Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated
a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some
nearby have been using this for some years already.
First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible:
There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key):
1)
Am 14.03.2015 um 21:59 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org:
remove the barrier=toll_booth from those German Toll Collect devices
that neither collect the toll nor trigger the collection, but only monitor
compliance,
as any speed or red light camera.
+1
Cheers
Martin
On 14/03/2015 10:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not
confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed spots
in a camp or along a road.
Combination of 2 and 3.
It must be possible to distinguish between vehicles. As I wrote earlier a
stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a
motorcycle and vice versa.
A scale in words very bad, bad, ... very good or whatever at least helps me
to remember what the good
The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in
JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that.
Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote:
So - I am
Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. - exchanges
old problem for a new one,
at huge cost and with no benefit.
glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted - will have the same problems
as current values, plus no
clear progression of values (maybe there is for native
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum:
I saw that one user declined both my proposals
(shop=storage and power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage
without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the
discussion. What purpose does this serve
On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com
mailto:ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote:
Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at
least for
I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage
and
power_supply=intermittent
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent)
in
the voting stage without any argumentation and
I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage
and power_supply=intermittent
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent)
in
the voting stage without any argumentation and
So - I am against any of proposed changes.
+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Nowhere, but I repeat my question:
What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process?
Please speak up!
Regards,
Jan
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst o...@jff-webhosting.net
wrote:
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum:
I
Either use a site relation
Then why isn't this in the proposal?
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 14.03.2015 12:50, Dan S wrote:
When there is very low interest (i.e. very few votes) - which is
pretty common - then even one dissenting vote is enough to make us
step back and think again, whereas if there are enough votes to make
majority approval a meaningful concept (I admit that 15 is
Hello.
In the discussion about the proposal about type=traffic_signals_group
it was suggested to use the term “set” instead of “group”. So I’ve
adapted the wiki page of the proposal and I’ve moved it to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals_set
--
Lukas Sommer
+1 to make a wiki entry on leisure=maze. Fits with what already exists and
the alternative isn't really better.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com
Warin wrote on 2015-03-14 03:16:
On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
Thus my next stop was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement
but, interestingly, it does not know yet about toll at all, yet.
No .. enforcement from the wiki is permanently installed devices that
Hi,
No, I think it means what it says. Or at least, I think we have
treated it that way for a long while.
When there is very low interest (i.e. very few votes) - which is
pretty common - then even one dissenting vote is enough to make us
step back and think again, whereas if there are enough
If the cameras are only used for toll enforcement, then that sounds good.
Highway=speed camera exists, and is for nodes. It should also be for lines, as
there are usually many perched on an overhead support over the road, and
micromapping might wish to draw them across the road.
Seems this is
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is
A rule of thumb for enough support is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15
total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be
considered (such as whether a feature is already in use).
This sounds a bit strange to me: a
Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not
confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed
spots in a camp or along a road.
+1, I believe the tag for informal camping
I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading
other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against.
Likewise, you can vote for a proposal even without being party to the
discussion.
Jonathan
---
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM, jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote:
I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by
reading other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then
vote against. Likewise, you can vote for a proposal even without being
party to the
On 14.03.2015 12:24, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is
A rule of thumb for enough support is /8 unanimous approval votes/ or /15
total votes with a majority approval/, but other factors may also be
considered (such as whether a feature is already
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1
decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines
would be accepted.
Anything with that level of opposition (7
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
As you are already indicating, 15 is too low a quorum in that case. We
cannot considering 8:7 votes an approval when we cosider 8:1 votes an
approval. That would mean that more negative votes would turn a rejection
to
On Mar 13, 2015 9:18 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
OsmAnd was telling me that I was passing a toll_booth on a German
motorway,
however it was just one of the camera bridges operated by TollCollect,
and applicable only for toll:hgv=yes.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground
inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also
noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a
Hey
For years the definitions about role forward/backward are completely
different on the wiki page about route=road [1] versus the page about
route relations (type=route) [2].
While all other route=* seem to follow the updated role definition that
the role depends on whether the route follows
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
Either use a site relation
Then why isn't this in the proposal?
I think the negative votes followed from a poorly formatted and confusing
proposal.
___
Tagging mailing list
51 matches
Mail list logo
