Hi
I agree with the permit system as it is discused here. I found it useful
for National Parks, specially for World Heritage Biosphere Reservations,
where a small amount of people has to book in advance.
If it keeps getting a strong opposition, you could consider mapping as
access=fee and adding a
On 21-Sep-17 11:24 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed in
this thread.
I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it may be
enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of the page,
copying some boiler-plate fro
I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed in this
thread.
I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it may be
enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of the page, copying
some boiler-plate from some other proposal, and advertising on this lis
On 21-Sep-17 06:01 AM, marc marc wrote:
Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?
I do not see any difference between access=permit and (not tag for)
access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet certain
conditions and generally a
Summary first: This looks very good to me, and I think it is in line
with the discussion here in the last few days. I support this.
* Kevin Kenny [170920 20:39]:
> The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the
> discussion. Let me summarize my position, and see if we've a
Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?
I do not see any difference between access=permit and (not tag for)
access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet certain
conditions and generally any sports club allows you to "buy a per
How about access=private and access:stranger=permit? However, military=*
and access=private seems to conflict as military zone implies specific
access rules.
20-09-2017 21:39 tarihinde Kevin Kenny yazdı:
>
> If details of permit administration are observable on the ground, we
> can work out ways
The last few messages in this thread seem to have quieted much of the
discussion. Let me summarize my position, and see if we've achieved
rough consensus.
access=permit (and (transport mode)=permit):
Symbolizes that the landowner requires permission for access, but
has a policy that gran
>
> If that interpretation is correct, there would have to be a Wikipedia
> article, Commons page (not just a related image), or similar entry in
> the Wikimedia ecosystem to meet the notability criteria.
I doubt it has to be in the Wikimedia ecosystem. People work hard to
get all paintings from s
On 19.09.2017 23:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> AFAIK wikidata's notability requirements should not be an issue, because
> it is sufficient there is a link to a commons page [1] to comply.
> [1] https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
The notability requirements specifically mention "si
10 matches
Mail list logo
