Dave Stubbs wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Dave F. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dave Stubbs wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 30 Sep 2009, at 20:46 , Russ Nelson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No, he is a leader because we respect him. THAT is how leaders in >>>>>> an anarchic state arise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> yes he is a leader and as such deserves respect. he should lead some >>>>> useful and intelligent projects and don't loose a word about this >>>>> childish 1/0/yes/no/true/false discussions. >>>>> a consumer of the data has to do a bit more work but this is a small >>>>> fee for free access to an amazing database. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The discussion is only childish if the tone of the discussion is >>>> childish. >>>> But if people discuss this issue in a good manner, then it isn't >>>> childish. >>>> >>>> If we can remove that small fee, why not do it? >>>> >>>> What's so hard about standardizing on the boolean values given >>>> appropriate >>>> changes to editor presets, good wiki documentation, and a deprecation >>>> period >>>> for other boolean values? >>>> >>>> >>> what's so hard? >>> The hard part is figuring out what the hell any of this actually has >>> to do with the thread topic. >>> Amazingly tag-standardisation is not even /relevant/ to the original >>> problem pointed out. >>> Oh well... wouldn't be the internet if someone wasn't wrong on it. >>> >>> >> Did you not read Kyle's post - 29th 15:25 >> > > Yes. > The original problem pointed out that I was referring to was: "It > works for building=yes, but not building=true". > > Which is the whole point of the following discussion. No?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
