Can people who don't live there post outgoing letters?
If not, I wouldn't use amenity=post_box
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, 23:18 wolfy1339 via Tagging,
wrote:
>
> Hello community!
>
> I have come here to ask some questions regarding the tagging of what we
> call community mailboxes in Canada (where e
Hello all,
the proposal for crannog has been rejected with 6 yes votes, 5 no votes
and 2 abstain votes. Thank you all for your input.
This will be followed up shortly with a new proposal.
Anne
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
The proposal needed the necessary changes, so the vote was stopped and the
article was repaired under the name: Proposed features/evaporation tower &
brine source
I’ve fix issues with brine_source=* tag (better definition) and
tourism=attraction (optional). But the tag name issue came up again, so
Le 22.10.22 à 00:15, wolfy1339 via Tagging a écrit :
The `amenity=post_box` tag seems to be only for outgoing mail only,
while this handles both incoming, and outgoing mail in one feature,
while the `amenity=letter_box` is for incoming mail only.
How would you recommend this be tagged, as it
On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.o
sent from a phone
> On 22 Oct 2022, at 14:16, Marc_marc wrote:
>
> it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box
> on the postal operator's website and put my letter there?
> or is it just a habit that people also put the outbound there ?
if it works reliably, it co
Hi Andy,
all the existing archaeological sites with site_type would have to be
retagged, if this is approved. I'm not proposing this lightly, but it is
what the people criticising the "_type" suffix want, apparently.
It just occured to me that it would probably also affect histosm.org.
But I mus
sent from a phone
> On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
>
> Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
> the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
> from site_type to archaeological_type
such a retagging would be a wa
What is the use of the proposal process then?
Anne
On 22/10/2022 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now prop
Le 22.10.22 à 15:09, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
sent from a phone
On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeolo
> it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box
> on the postal operator's website and put my letter there?
outgoing mail boxes aren't listed on the postal operator's website.
As a tourist, if you happen to come across one of these, you are free to
deposit any outgoing m
12 matches
Mail list logo