On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:44:13PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> done!
oh well.. now they moved it into some users namespace.
I guess we need category:humor ?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
done!
On 2019-02-05 22:47, Richard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> Another +1
>>
>> That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to
>> be labeled for deletion.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed
>
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Another +1
>
> That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to be
> labeled for deletion.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed
just do it.. I do not want further edit warring
Another +1
That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to be
labeled for deletion.
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> +1!! :-)
>
> On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> Oh,
+1!! :-)
On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed! I hadn't seen it before, and
> it's hilarious!
>
> (Unless we have a rule that the Wiki shall be devoid of the least
> indication that mappers have a sense of humour...)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard wrote:
> Please have look at the list of pages and raise your voice if there is
> anything
> that doesn't appear like a clear case for deletion for you.
Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed! I hadn't seen it before, and
it's hilarious!
(Unless we have
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:26:03PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Usually, they "old" proposals get archived (has 2 benefits: they will not
> be modificable any more, and it will be less easy to confuse them with
> current tag definitions).
>
> I am interested in your opinion on this case,
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has been
> pointed during voting or RFC.
> I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone
> who took time to make things better.
At the very
Hi
Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has
been pointed during voting or RFC.
I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone
who took time to make things better.
All the best
François
Le lun. 4 févr. 2019 à 17:52, OSMDoudou <
Past proposals constitute knowledge which can serve later on for a new
proposal. If it would be total crap, it would better be delete it to avoid it
serves as bad model. But if it’s half good, it can be a baseline of what was
learnt, what was disputed, what needs improvement, etc.
Usually, they "old" proposals get archived (has 2 benefits: they will not
be modificable any more, and it will be less easy to confuse them with
current tag definitions).
I am interested in your opinion on this case, where 2 users (so far) are
for the wholesale deletion, while 3 have demonstrated
11 matches
Mail list logo
