I was under the impression that we already had a rough consensus. Indeed it will not be possible to rely fully on the tags of points 1 and 3 as has been brought up in the discussion. Please reply if (and why!) you think that we don't have rough consensus.
Cheers, Johan 2013/12/3 Johan C <[email protected]> > I was under the impression that we already had a rough consensus. Indeed > it will not be possible to rely fully on the tags of points 1 and 3 as has > been brought up in the discussion. Please reply if (and why!) you think > that we don't have rough consensus. > > Cheers, Johan > > > 2013/12/3 Paul Norman <[email protected]> > >> > From: Johan C [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:42 PM >> > Subject: Re: [Imports] Dutch addresses and buildings import from BAG >> > >> > Thanks for the feedback. Four issues arose: >> > >> > 1. it's nowadays better to put source and source:date on the changeset >> > instead of the nodes and ways >> > 2. the changeset should have the text import and source >> > 3. it's better not to use ref:bag >> > 4. it's better not to use bag:function >> > >> > I took these matters back to the others in the Dutch community for >> > reconsideration. In short: we agreed on 2 and 4 for which the Wiki >> import >> > page has been updated, we disagreed on 1 and 3. >> >> Just to clarify on this point, the Dutch community does not have a sole >> say >> on points 1 and 3. If we can't reach a rough consensus on imports@ about >> 1 >> and 3 the import will need to wait until agreement can be found. >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
