On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbs <[email protected]>wrote:
> > The path proposal could have been successful long ago if > > applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see > CycleMap). > > > > It's on the todo list. > It screws up the stylesheets in horrible ways due to the hundreds of > tag combinations that end up meaning "cycle path" as far as the cycle > map is concerned, so we're investigating more sane ways to handle it. > > > Dave > I tend to think that "form a committee" comes down to "watch the wiki page" - ie not substantially different to current practice. Committees are just an efficient way to make progress on part of a problem. The key thing is making sure the other parts of the problem don't get ignored. At least an open wiki process is open. I've picked up Dave's point above, because it's clear that part of the "real" problem is that adhoc committees sometimes don't take account of the implications for particular data users (and stylesheets may be the most complicated data user). In this case "let's trash footway/cycleway" becomes a major problem of deciphering tag-combinations. Maybe we need some "meta rules" for the process, that recognises the scale of problems that could be created for data users, and proceeds judiciously. Richard
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
