sent from a phone
> On 7 Nov 2022, at 12:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> deprecating site_type has chance of being a good idea
I don’t think so, it is defacto one of the tags used to further specify
historic=archaeological_site and moving away from it is on the same level
Oct 24, 2022, 11:12 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 23 Oct 2022, at 22:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> personally it seems to me that it has chance of being a good idea
>>
>
>
> which one, deprecating site_type or ignoring the „rejection“ of the
On 24/10/22 07:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Oct 22, 2022, 15:09 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
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
sent from a phone
> On 23 Oct 2022, at 22:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> personally it seems to me that it has chance of being a good idea
which one, deprecating site_type or ignoring the „rejection“ of the voting?
Cheers Martin
Oct 22, 2022, 15:09 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> 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
review of proposed changes and greater chance that problems with
a new tagging will be spotted
boost to documenting version preferred by proposal on wiki
editors of various OSM-related software gave some weight to such
approvals, though it varies and some ignore it completely
Oct 22, 2022,
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
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
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
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
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":
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
