Warin, Don't you van a few possible values that create little controversion to be included in the proposal. The ones that cause more discussion can be added later. In this way you have a complete proposal without losing the main key because of disagreement about proposed values.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:08 AM Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28/02/2015 8:57 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm going to move this to voting shortly .. do remember the vote is on >> the key ... not values. Thus the vote is on "waste_collection=", not >> recycling, 'reverse fees' :-) , etc etc. >> > > -5 > > I disagree: the vote is on the proposal, not just "the key". > The wiki process works well when the entire proposal can be improved, and > a good pattern of tagging set from the start. > > > We'll have to agree to disagree then. > > > ------------------------------------ > As a concept OSM maps what is seen on the ground. > The present waste type things are taged as to the thing collected .. not > what is seen on the ground... > > Should not the tag there be primarily on that thing on the ground? > > Certainly for the solid wastes ... > capacity - would indicate the size ... probably in litres as that looks to > be the way the things are specified? > receptical - wheelie bin, skip bin .. and others .. names/descriptions to > be found ... ? > > and then lastly what goes in them? > > Just a though ... any comments ...? > I know that the person looking to dispose of a certain thing will search > for that .. but once found they'd like not only the location but the size > and description would be handy? > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
