Gustav Foseid wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1
care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently
the proposal
Liz wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Alex Mauer wrote:
Not sure how you think path was forced though. It had 34 votes, 22
for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the
standard procedure.
while this was the sort of number of votes that appear on the wiki, for a
John Smith wrote:
Forced is probably the wrong word, gamed the system is what I would have said.
The system was used exactly as it was intended. It's not my fault if
few people choose to participate.
If there is over 100,000 accounts and at least 1% of them actively map and
have actively
Steve Hill wrote:
It seems to me that instead of referring to a crossing by name, we should
just list its properties. e.g. something like:
highway=crossing
crossing=uncontrolled|traffic_signals
island=yes|no
bicycle=yes|no
foot=yes|no
horse=yes|no
+1. This is almost exactly what the
Jeffrey Martin wrote:
I think free tagging is great, but we should not allow multiple
definitions for each tag.
A tag should not indicate both it's legal status and it's structure,
although one might
imply the other under certain circumstances.
Well, that's an unfortunate fact of the
Sven Geggus wrote:
Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already
existed
in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal.
So let us break down the different suggestions and go on vor vote
now?
As far as I can
6 matches
Mail list logo
