I'm "one more OSM Contributor" volunteering my opinion here. I voted for the hazard proposal as is, although my vote included the note that "this proposal is a solid foundation for the (hazard) syntax of both today and tomorrow."
There are such things: OSM has many examples of where we begin something that is a well-thought-out sketch (or more, yet still recognizable as not-quite-complete) and then grows to a mature example of itself. Perfection should not be the enemy of the good. This is at least a good proposal, I'd even say "excellent," especially in its efforts to be comprehensive. I say this neither to discourage the continuing good dialog here, nor the growth of "hazard" (syntax, wiki, usage in the map data...) into the future, but rather in harmony with those. This puts me in agreement with Brian as he says "consider this proposal a starting point." I'm saying "it's at least a good one, I'll even go 'excellent.'" I believe the more voices we hear, the better. SteveA _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
