Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 23:23 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : > > I just watched that talk and fully disagree. The talk was using anecdotes > as evidence and quite rhetorical. The proposal cited as example was rejected > because it was immature and self-contradictory

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Slightly off-topic but there is a renewed effort to improve the childcare/pre-school education under way on the German forum. Naturally the issues that you touched on have not gone away and it remains tricky to get find a solution that is reasonably simple to tag and at the same time tries to

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Shawn K. Quinn wrote on 2016/03/27 20:02: I can agree with setting this proposal as abandoned. However, we do need better tagging for childcare facilities and it is disappointing that the talk Monica Stephens gave back in 2012 has apparently fallen on deaf ears. I just watched that talk and

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 17:24 +0200, Richard wrote: > my 2c, avoid any automatisms. Some proposals need a lot of time to > ripe. > > Using talk page, contacting original author(s) would be highly > recommended. This proposal, in particular, is probably due for a revisit, especially given that it

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

On Sat, 2016-03-26 at 11:06 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > FWIW, the actual reason for this mail now is this edit, but I'm more > interested to learn about your general considerations: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare2.0=next=1128997 I can agree

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:06:34AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wonder what others think about changing the status of proposals in draft > mode to abandoned in the wiki. Is this something we want everyone to do after > a certain time, or should this be reserved to the original

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Colin Smale wrote on 2016/03/26 15:45: The status should in some way make it clear to people who use the wiki as a tagging reference whether the contents of the page should be taken into account or not. If the proposal has been "abandoned" but what is suggests has nonetheless entered wider

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

The status should in some way make it clear to people who use the wiki as a tagging reference whether the contents of the page should be taken into account or not. If the proposal has been "abandoned" but what is suggests has nonetheless entered wider usage, then it is de facto accepted by the

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/03/26 12:49: Am 26.03.2016 um 11:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : "what would be a reasonable threshold" - no edits in this or previous year is my typical method to recognise something on internet as dead. but wouldn't it be necessary to

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

sent from a phone > Am 26.03.2016 um 11:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > "what would be a reasonable threshold" - no edits in this or previous > year is my typical method to recognise something on internet as dead. but wouldn't it be necessary to look at actual map

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 11:06:34 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wonder what others think about changing the status of proposals in > draft mode to abandoned in the wiki. Is this something we want > everyone to do after a certain time, or should this be reserved to > the

[Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

I wonder what others think about changing the status of proposals in draft mode to abandoned in the wiki. Is this something we want everyone to do after a certain time, or should this be reserved to the original proponent? Would the situation be different if the status wasn't draft but proposed?