Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

If you scroll down you will notice that there was never a sloped_kerb proposal as the page is actually the proposal for amenity=sloped_curb which was marked as inactive here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/sloped_kerb=670959 (which is understandable given that

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

Today: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/sloped_kerb=1279361=1215962 On 7 March 2016 at 19:48, Simon Poole wrote: > Recently I believe in this case was 2010 . > > Simon > > Am 07.03.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Andy Mabbett: >> On 2 March 2016 at

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

Recently I believe in this case was 2010 . Simon Am 07.03.2016 um 19:39 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 2 March 2016 at 16:42, Simon Poole wrote: >> While the abandoned proposal seems to be more complete and I can't say >> anything about the other variant because of the lacking

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

On 2 March 2016 at 16:42, Simon Poole wrote: > While the abandoned proposal seems to be more complete and I can't say > anything about the other variant because of the lacking documentation, I > don't really care either way, it would simply make easier if we could > come to some

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

On 02.03.2016 17:42, Simon Poole wrote: > While the abandoned proposal seems to be more complete and I can't > say anything about the other variant because of the lacking > documentation, I don't really care either way, it would simply > make easier if we could come to some consensus on what the

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

2016-03-03 12:24 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole : > My question was solely if there is some consensus that the kerb proposal > is actually how it should be tagged now or if it is truly defunct and the > original tagging scheme should continued to be used (as iD does). I'm in favour of

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

As pointed in my first mail out the issue is deprecating an existing scheme in the wiki without replacing it with something else that is either recognized as "how we do it now" or "approved" (the issue is not that there is yet another scheme bit rotting in proposal state). My question was solely

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

2016-03-03 11:43 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole : > The problem is "we" didn't. As already pointed out, there is only a > proposal that has been bit-rotting for multiple years (it probably, when > used on a crossing node, should have kerb:right and kerb:left variants for > the asymmetric

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

Am 03.03.2016 um 11:23 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2016-03-02 17:42 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole >: > > While the abandoned proposal seems to be more complete and I can't say > anything about the other variant because of the lacking >

Re: [Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

2016-03-02 17:42 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole : > While the abandoned proposal seems to be more complete and I can't say > anything about the other variant because of the lacking documentation, I > don't really care either way, it would simply make easier if we could > come to some

[Tagging] sloped_curb, kerb and god knows what left in limbo ......

Accidentally I noticed today that iD was suggesting a sloped_curb tag for crossings, it piqued my curiosity a bit and it seems that we have the situation now, that we have two different tagging systems in moderate use (~20'000 occurrences of slopped_curb and kerb each). But no documentation for