I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no "good" page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk subpage.
Cheers, Kotya On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:55 PM, fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Nice that you follow the "new", unwritten rules. > > Sorry, but I usually only vote by using the tag and not on the wiki, > still I would say, give it more time and improve the documentation as we > will need it anyway (both the tag and its docu). > > Cheers fly > > > Am 01.04.2015 um 03:02 schrieb Warin: > > Hi, > > > > I have taken this back to the Draft status/stage. > > > > There is not much of a change to the basic proposal > amenity=reception_desk. > > > > There is a much more verbose explanation of things .. like what key to > use. > > > > Summary of voting .. > > > > Thank you all for voting. 38 votes is I hope a good representation. > > > > 21 for > > > > 17 against. > > > > Of those against; > > 10 state it should not be an amenity key and most of those are for it > > being in the tourism key. > > My failing there for not explaining that it has applications to offices, > > industries and educational areas where tourism is not an appropriate key. > > > > 1 says it needs more time. > > > > > > 1 says it is not necessarily a desk. > > I have never come across one that was not a desk - telephone, public > > address system and sign in in all housed on a desk. > > > > 2 (with another supportive comment from someone else) says it should > > embedded in 'the indoor tagging scheme'. > > The 'indoor tagging scheme'? That is going to have the same kind of > > problems with the tags for toilets, telephones, shops swimming pools, > > etc etc. The problem posed by this tag exists for many others and will > > need to be addressed by the indoor tagging system NOT by this tag > > alone. The 'indoor tagging system' looks to be in evolution ... and > > will probably take some time before being generally accepted. > > > > How is reception desk shown to be part of another feature? By its > > location in most instances. It has also been suggest that a site > > relation could be used. The site relation looks to be in some state of > > 'proposed'... I could not hazard a guess as to when it will progress > > onwards. > > (proposed) relation > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature > > > > Also note the other proposal > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster > > > > I don't see how the problem can be addressed by the simple value of the > > proposed reception_desk .. particularly as it is a problem/solution for > > other things too? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
