I've made some significant edits to the proposal, to try and clarify some things and boil the proposal down to the basics.
I removed a significant portion of David's text, however I think much of it is valuable, and so would encourage him to pull it out from the prior revision and put it on the talk page. -Josh On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > David Paleino wrote: >> Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me? >> I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use >> sidewalk=*. >> If you want to add more details, follow my proposal. > > I'm not remotely interested in the merits or otherwise of your proposal. I > don't have the time to watch every single thing that goes through this list > and assess whether I need to patch Potlatch 2 to have an inviting UI to > support it. > > What I am saying is: you can't just say, as you did, "it's not up to me to > consider how this will be implemented in Potlatch" (or, indeed, any other > editor). It is _absolutely_ up to you. You're the one who wants the proposal > to be adopted. > > Richard > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-Sidewalks-as-separate-ways-tp6205524p6207468.html > Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging