But what is a significant amount of use? You can't just go on
numbers. Based on the posts a month or so back about badly formed
tags, there are probably more misspelled versions of the main highway
tags than legitimate versions of many other tags.
I would, in fact, think that a well thought out
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Lastly, it cannot tell you if 50% of people are using foo=bar to mean
> one thing, and the other 50% are using it to mean something else. Tags
> do not contain all of their semantics in their names.
It also can't tell you when different tags mean the same thing. If 50%
Christoph Eckert wrote:
> IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
> recommendations would be built on top what's actually used. Much more
> democratic than the current process IMO :) .
Tagwatch tells you what is. It cannot by itself tell you what should be.
It coul
Stephen Gower wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:01:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> That sounds eminently sensible, and in general I agree with your
> proposals. For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
> consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
>
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 08:42:55AM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote:
> 2008/5/8 Christoph Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
> > > consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
> > > change that process?
> >
> > IMO map feat
2008/5/8 DavidD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/5/7 Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > using tagwatch is a good idea as a basis for proposals, but problems
> > arise when we have two ways of tagging the same type of item. how does
> > anyone decide which should be used? one must be more opti
2008/5/7 Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> using tagwatch is a good idea as a basis for proposals, but problems
> arise when we have two ways of tagging the same type of item. how does
> anyone decide which should be used? one must be more optimal than the
> other. having two methods running
2008/5/8 Christoph Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
> > consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
> > change that process?
>
> IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
> recommendation
Hi,
> For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
> consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
> change that process?
IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
recommendations would be built on top what's actually used. Much more
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:01:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > * Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
> > particular tagging scheme.
> > * Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
> > complaining about what was going on [1]
>
> May
10 matches
Mail list logo
