Hi Andy,
all the existing archaeological sites with site_type would have to be
retagged, if this is approved. I'm not proposing this lightly, but it is
what the people criticising the "_type" suffix want, apparently.
It just occured to me that it would probably also affect histosm.org.
But I must presume the critics have thought of all that before they voted.
Anne
On 22/10/2022 13:34, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
Hello,
That page says "This would apply to c. 113 000 features". For the
avoidance of doubt, are you suggesting (after the acceptance of this
proposal) that people would "just start using the new values", or are
you planning a series of edits following
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ,
or do you believe that acceptance of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
implies acceptance of a change to OSM data as well?
The reason that I'm asking is as can be seen from
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type#projects I'm
currently using that tag to control display of features (actual
example code at
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5622
for info) and it'd be good to know when I need to change that to say
something else.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
