I think the 2 week time frame is to allow for someone on holidays (of ~
2 weeks) to be able to see things and respond.
As such the 2 weeks is a minimum not a maximum.
Indeed there is no maximum for RFC nor for voting. However if there has
been no activity for some time (months?) then some one
Ueli,
Usually it is standard to allow 2 weeks after the RFC email is sent
out, before starting voting:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
I don't think this is a big problem, but if anyone complains you might
need to extend the voting period for an extra week.
- Joseph
Osm forums
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67218 (german forum)
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67219 (Belgian forum)
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66243 (Dutch forum)
The main discussion of alternatives was on the Dutch forum. Here I
Hello
My proposal "cash withdrawal" is now ready to vote on.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cash_withdrawal
With my best regards
Ueli aka amilopowers
Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Yes, it is indeed complicated. But it definitely is a national park.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembrokeshire_Coast_National_Park
> and https://www.pembrokeshirecoast.wales/default.asp?PID=161
> It may include things that many wouldn't
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 17:50, Kevin Kenny wrote:
(Earlier in the thread, I mentioned tagging the Catskill and
> Adirondack Parks in New York as 'national_park' and not apologizing.
> Someone replied to me giving Pembrokeshire Coast National Park as a UK
> precedent for a 'national park that isnt
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this
> exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use.
Where does this discussion you're talking about take place?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Paul Allen wrote:
>> Since the values are keywords, they should be endlessly expandable.
>> Constraining ourselves to the IUCN numeric codes is one of the things
>> that got us into this particular mess in the first place. I intend the
>> set of keywords to be
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 16:31, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Site of Special Scientific Interest.
> Does that actually specify what sort of protection the site enjoys?
>
Yes and no. It's complicated. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest is an
overview.
As applied to
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:17 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> Here are some other UK types that occur to me. Some already have other ways
> of
> being mapped. Some may fit in with categories/classes/whatevers you already
> have. I don't insist that your proposal deals with all of them right now
>
LS
With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and Belgian
mappers decided to claim (hijack) the network value rcn for those node
networks. This exception was copied with the claim of network=rwn for the
walking node networks.
We are currently discussing in the three communities
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 00:05, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> I _am_ tempted to change the name to 'protection_category' because
> that's IUCN's term,
No objections from me.
> and then discuss on the Wiki that 'recreation',
> 'culture', and 'hazard' expand upon the IUCN vocabulary to encompass
>
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> more happy pigs to be found here (supposedly)
>>> https://www.naturalpigfarming.com/low%20res%2060/IMG_1385.jpg
>>>
>>
>> And that is a pig pen. But, according to some, also a pig
13 matches
Mail list logo
