Alberto,
thanks for your effort.
I've updated fire hydrant page [1]. Can you check it, and improve it,
if necessary?
Will check it and try to translate for the German version.
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists
I've updated fire hydrant page [1]. Can you check it, and improve it, if
necessary?
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant
Thank you.
Alberto
---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Hi Alberto,
This is a nice news :)
Thank you to bring this up !
Francois
2017-11-29 22:26 GMT+01:00 Viking :
> Finally the proposal [1] has been approved.
> Thank you to all people who worked on this project.
> As soon as possible we will update fire hydrant wiki page.
> Then we can go on with
Finally the proposal [1] has been approved.
Thank you to all people who worked on this project.
As soon as possible we will update fire hydrant wiki page.
Then we can go on with part 3... :)
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions_(part_2)
Best regards
A
After many revisions to fire hydrant proposal, I request you to vote
the new version of this proposal [1].
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions_(part_2)
Thanks a lot for your effort Alberto.
There is already a map which implements the scheme:
User
After many revisions to fire hydrant proposal, I request you to vote the new
version of this proposal [1].
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions_(part_2)
Thank you
Best regards
Alberto
---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con
I just put a comment on the Talk pages in the wiki.
Interestingly it were about 80% German users.
Am 2017-10-25 15:13, schrieb Viking:
Have you already contacted anybody who opposed the previous proposal?
I'm still thinking it would make sense to ask them individually but
don't want to annoy t
No, I didn't concact them individually yet. Moritz, can you do it?\
Will do.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>Have you already contacted anybody who opposed the previous proposal?
>I'm still thinking it would make sense to ask them individually but don't want
>to annoy them by to much contact requests.
No, I didn't concact them individually yet. Moritz, can you do it?
If someone else (and not only me) s
The new proposal sounds reasonable for me.
Have you already contacted anybody who opposed the previous proposal?
I'm still thinking it would make sense to ask them individually but
don't want to annoy them by to much contact requests.
Moritz
___
Tag
Me too.
Can anyone check if the proposal [1] is consistent and error-free?
Feel free to add better descriptions.
I will read over it on the weekend.
And then can we go directly to vote it, or have we to call a RFC again?
I would start a (possible shorter) RFC again and explicitly ask the
pe
> I would aim for the proposals to get approved
Me too.
Can anyone check if the proposal [1] is consistent and error-free? Feel free to
add better descriptions.
And then can we go directly to vote it, or have we to call a RFC again?
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire
Thanks for the effort you put in this proposal and splitting it again.
Regarding your last question how to proceed:
I would aim for the proposals to get approved (even if it only means
that there are some people on the tagging list how voted for it and it
is not related to all the other mapper
I've tried to summarize post-vote conclusions here: Fire Hydrant Extensions
(part 2) [1]
Now, we can use it as it is and apply these changes to hydrant wiki page, or
change it, or vote it again.
Then we can go on and discuss/vote Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3) [2].
Finally, if we want, we can c
On 17-Oct-17 10:00 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Martin wrote: "You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever
you want. Just removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones
isn't. *)"
+1
+1 - Indeed it is best to map a few of the new things so as to see how
it goes for you.
The e
Martin wrote: "You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever you
want. Just removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones isn't. *)"
+1
The entire voting process is non-binding. It's a referendum of the opinions
of the few people who read this list, take the trouble to analyze a
p
2017-10-16 19:28 GMT+02:00 Viking :
>
> We can't block this proposal any more. In a way or in another we need the
> new tags as soon as possible.
You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever you want. Just
removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones isn't. *)
As long as yo
Hi Alberto,
Am 16.10.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Viking:
> Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change
> "no" to "yes" if we redefine gallons.
> Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved?
A quote from the wiki (page Proposal_process#Appro
Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change "no"
to "yes" if we redefine gallons.
Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved?
Anyway some issues can be easily solved:
fire_hydrant:class=* can become fire_hydrant:awwa_class=*
gpm can
> > From: marc marc
> > To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org"
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant
> > Extensions)
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Le 05. 10. 17 à 12:16, Viking a écrit :
> > > I really don'
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:14:56 +
> From: marc marc
> To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org"
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant
> Extensions)
>
> Hello,
>
> Le 05. 10. 17 à 12:16, Viking a écrit :
> > I really don&
Hello,
Le 05. 10. 17 à 12:16, Viking a écrit :
> I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1] without
> ever having participated in the discussions
it is indeed strange that no opponent took the time to say during
the RFC arguments that are found now during the vote.
yes
That's often the case with the voting process.
However there is a few constructive comments that could be addressed to refine
this proposal. Think about what is essential, and what is not (like namespaces
or not).
In such a specialized tagging scheme, I always thought it would be nice if
vote
On 05-Oct-17 09:16 PM, Viking wrote:
I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1] without
ever having participated in the discussions that lasted for months.
We did many efforts to reach this compromise that seems a good solution for
firefighters' needs, and now people
I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1] without
ever having participated in the discussions that lasted for months.
We did many efforts to reach this compromise that seems a good solution for
firefighters' needs, and now people are opposing to it whithout understand
I've fixed page layout without changing anything in the proposal.
I request you to vote this proposal [1].
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions
Thank you
Best regards
Alberto
---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast an
Am 07.08.2010 00:25, schrieb Richard Welty:
> yes, i voted no because of the move back to amenity. while i understand
> the reluctance to switch over the existing tags in a rush, there's little
> reason not to start using emergency for new tags.
+1
skyper
On 7 August 2010 08:25, Richard Welty wrote:
> yes, i voted no because of the move back to amenity. while i understand
> the reluctance to switch over the existing tags in a rush, there's little
> reason not to start using emergency for new tags.
In this case the only reference (other than the wi
On 8/6/10 6:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 6 August 2010 21:31, Schlumpf wrote:
The vote for the new fire_hydrant has been started.
After a long discussion about the "emergency-tags" we decided to let the
fire hydrants in the amenity namespace, for now.
Who decided this exactly?
Seems the only
On 6 August 2010 21:31, Schlumpf wrote:
> The vote for the new fire_hydrant has been started.
>
> After a long discussion about the "emergency-tags" we decided to let the
> fire hydrants in the amenity namespace, for now.
Who decided this exactly?
Seems the only reason that was given to leave it
The vote for the new fire_hydrant has been started.
After a long discussion about the "emergency-tags" we decided to let the
fire hydrants in the amenity namespace, for now.
Please Vote!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant
regards
Martin S.
_
31 matches
Mail list logo
