As nobody reacted on my last post on splitting it in a different way, just let
us go for voting and see what will happen.
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 30.09.2017 um 19:24 schrieb Viking:
According to the huge number of affected nodes (~300k for
fire_hydrant:position=*). I'm afraid that a lot of voters will oppose
the proposal due to the huge impact of it. In this case we would also not have
the well
discussed new tags and need to start a
> According to the huge number of affected nodes (~300k for
> fire_hydrant:position=*). I'm afraid that a lot of voters will oppose
> the proposal due to the huge impact of it. In this case we would also not
> have the well
> discussed new tags and need to start a new proposal.
It seems we
Am 2017-09-16 19:19, schrieb Viking:
Thank you for splitting it.
I think it is worth to think about splitting the two proposals in a
different way:
One for adding new keys (like flow_rate, water_source) and the other one
for migrating the fire_hydrant:* keys to something else.
I see two
I've splitted the proposal in [1] and [2], as requested.
Please help me to check them.
In Italian mailing list, it has been proposed the tag cap:wrench=*, because
often the wrench needed to open the caps is different from the wrench that
opens the hydrant itself. I've added this tag to [2] with
