It's a monthly thing ...in OSM land
lol .. smooth :)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > The wiki is confusing, though. It puts highway=residential,
> > highway=track, highway=service, and highway=pedestrian under the
> > su
On 12 January 2011 14:36, Anthony wrote:
> By the way, this is a great example of why "no approval process
> required for tags" is a weakness, and not a strength (see "Ultimate
> list of approved keys",
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/6203)
No, the lack of a poli
JohnSmitty wrote:
>
> No, the lack of a policy to mass retag is the weakness.
>
No. You cannot retag once the meaning of a tag has been lost in multiple
different interpretations.
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/paths-and-roads-an
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:10:38 -0800 (PST)
NopMap wrote:
> JohnSmitty wrote:
> >
> > No, the lack of a policy to mass retag is the weakness.
> >
>
> No. You cannot retag once the meaning of a tag has been lost in
> multiple different interpretations.
>
> bye
>Nop
Even tha
Hi!
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
> Even that would constitute part of a policy
>
That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-)
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/paths-and-roads-and-approval-oh-my-tp5913440p5917575.html
Sent from the General
On 13 January 2011 19:17, NopMap wrote:
> That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-)
It's either policy or just someone's opinion, can't be both...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi!
JohnSmitty wrote:
>
> On 13 January 2011 19:17, NopMap wrote:
>> That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-)
>
> It's either policy or just someone's opinion, can't be both...
>
Regardless of how democratically minded you are feeling,
there are things in the universe that you cannot
What is it you two are arguing about?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:13 AM, NopMap wrote:
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
> JohnSmitty wrote:
>>
>> On 13 January 2011 19:17, NopMap wrote:
>>> That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-)
>>
>> It's either policy or just someone's opinion, can't be both...
>>
>
> Reg
On 14 January 2011 07:28, Anthony wrote:
> What is it you two are arguing about?
NopMap is making the assertion that tags can't be altered once they
start being used, but this isn't the case since abutters etc have
already been deprecated in favour of other mapping methods/techniques.
__
Hi!
JohnSmitty wrote:
>
> NopMap is making the assertion that tags can't be altered once they
> start being used, but this isn't the case since abutters etc have
> already been deprecated in favour of other mapping methods/techniques.
>
No. I am making the assertion that the most important p
On 14 January 2011 19:24, NopMap wrote:
> No. I am making the assertion that the most important problems cannot be
> solved by mass retagging, thus contradicting JohnSmittys earlier statement
> that the "lack of a mass retagging policy was the weakness" rather than the
> lack of an approval proces
The word you want is deprecate, not depreciate. Depreciate means "to go down
in monetary value".
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
>From :mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
Date :Fri Jan 14 03:43:26 America/Chicago
12 matches
Mail list logo
