On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
The advantage of a proposal and discussion is that it improves documentation.
+1 and that's already good enough no ? Although I did not myself check
this proposal, the feedbacks seem to express a good idea but a lack of
2013/12/15 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com
1. There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected
(and I can understand that)
there are for voting: we require at least 15 votes and a majority of yes
votes. Of course a won voting doesn't make your tag approved or used by
the
1. There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected
(and I can understand that)
there are for voting: we require at least 15 votes and a majority of yes
votes. Of course a won voting doesn't make your tag approved or used by
the community.
2. For some reason it
I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
tagging is.
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
@
Yes, it will be included in the new proposal.
PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way:
http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662point=52.509385%2C13.270111vehicle=BIKElocale=nl
Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
I agree with
Am 14.12.2013 15:18, schrieb Masi Master:
Yes, it will be included in the new proposal.
PeeWee32 created an example of routing the SHORTEST way:
http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662point=52.509385%2C13.270111vehicle=BIKElocale=nl
Am 14.12.2013, 14:25 Uhr, schrieb Erik
On 13 December 2013 19:37, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion. We think and
hope we have enough information to work on new proposal.
Thank you for not giving up, and for trying to improve the proposal.
I think many of the no-votes were
Thanks Matthijs, Fly, Erik ,Ilpo and Martin for your reply. I’ll say a few
words on how I look at the matter. I have not discussed all this with
co-author MasiMaster so this is my personal view.
*Proposal process (with or without voting) *
As Fly stated a proposal is not needed to start using
Today the voting of the
bicycle=use_cyclewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cyclewayended.
Voting results:
Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
No: 11
Abstain: 3
This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject the
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Pee Wee wrote:
Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended. Voting results:
Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
No: 11
Abstain: 3
This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject the
current one.
We want
2013/12/13 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com
Today the voting of the
bicycle=use_cyclewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cyclewayended.
Voting results:
Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)
No: 11
Abstain: 3
This is reason enough for us
@ Martin
I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not expect
we had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
some examples like this
onehttp://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662point=52.509385%2C13.270111vehicle=BIKElocale=nlshowing
12 matches
Mail list logo
