> The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units > embedded on their own pages. > That's a good thing for tl;dr readers.
Map_Features/Units isn’t a big wiki page. It’s really short (3 sentences and some tables). Maybe for keys like “width” it could be usefull to have only the part about distances (and not the part about weight). But dropping the rest of the content makes things confusing. 2015-04-03 9:25 GMT, Lukas Sommer <sommer...@gmail.com>: >> I'd ask the following be excluded ? >> cm (used in the clothing and foot ware trades ..not an OSM thing ) >> cubits > > I don’t think that there is a need to “exclude” some values (and > “allow” anything else). Insteat, I think there is a need to “allow” > some values (and exclude anything else). > > 2015-04-03 9:16 GMT, Lukas Sommer <sommer...@gmail.com>: >>>> So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. >>> That's not possible for a working template, >> >>> Note the template is not USED, >> >> And it should also not be used, because it’s just your personal >> proposal for a discussion. So there is no need to have a working >> template. So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. >> >> 2015-04-03 8:51 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com>: >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Martin Vonwald <imagic....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A >>>> simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. >>>> >>> >>> The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units >>> embedded on their own pages. >>> That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Lukas Sommer >> > > > -- > Lukas Sommer > -- Lukas Sommer _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
