[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Piste:type=connection
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste:type%3Dconnection Hi, I'd like to start voting on Piste:type=connection, which is needed for walk-overs and other types of connections between lifts. The tag is already in use 102 times in four alpine countries. It is essential for ski routing applications to function. Helge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Piste:type=connection
Hello, Le 24. 01. 18 à 10:42, Helge Fahrnberger a écrit : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste:type%3Dconnection > I'd like to start voting you forget to make a request for comment :) end end date look wrong (January <> February) my comment : the definition is strange. "mainly for routing purposes" is not a definition, it's a usecase. Maybe definition should be like : "ways taken by skiers to go from one lift to another or from one lift to another at the beginning of the piste." Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Piste:type=connection
Hi Marc, I did send an RFC, over a year ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030270.html Caused some positive comments on the discussion page and quite some people actually using the tag. As for the text on the proposal page itself: I intended it for the audience here. I agree that the tag description for a general mappers' audience needs to be different. (Not very familiar with the proposal habits.) I promise to draft a better tag page after voting ;-) Helge >marc marc marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com wrote: >Wed Jan 24 10:04:39 UTC 2018 > >Hello, > >Le 24. 01. 18 à 10:42, Helge Fahrnberger a écrit : >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste:type%3Dconnection >> I'd like to start voting > >you forget to make a request for comment :) >end end date look wrong (January <> February) >my comment : the definition is strange. >"mainly for routing purposes" is not a definition, it's a usecase. >Maybe definition should be like : >"ways taken by skiers to go from one lift to another or >from one lift to another at the beginning of the piste." > >Regards, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Piste:type=connection
On 25-Jan-18 05:53 AM, Helge Fahrnberger wrote: Hi Marc, I did send an RFC, over a year ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030270.html Caused some positive comments on the discussion page and quite some people actually using the tag. As for the text on the proposal page itself: I intended it for the audience here. I agree that the tag description for a general mappers' audience needs to be different. (Not very familiar with the proposal habits.) I promise to draft a better tag page after voting ;-) If you change the tag .. then what are 'we' voting on? Get the proposal well defined .. it has been in 'comments' for years .. so why was it not improved during that time? There were no changes from September 2016 to Jan 2018. Looks to me like not many people here have an interest in this. But in principle - if voted as an 'approved' tag then there should be no basic changes to the meanings. So the description should be very good before voting is requested, not changed afterwards to something the voters have no say in. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
