Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Gustav Foseid wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Knerr > wrote: > > Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1 > care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently > the proposal isn't so bad,

Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

John Smith wrote: > Forced is probably the wrong word, gamed the system is what I would have said. The system was used exactly as it was intended. It's not my fault if few people choose to participate. > If there is over 100,000 accounts and at least 1% of them actively map and > have actively

Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

Liz wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Alex Mauer wrote: >> Not sure how you think path was "forced" though. It had 34 votes, 22 >> for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the >> standard procedure. > while this was the sort of number of votes that appear on the wiki, for a

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions)

Charlie Echo wrote: > The proposal you mention is a radical change in the way we would tag. We > would move from tag=value to tag:subtag:subtag=value. It's really not different in any significant way from the psv_directions proposal. The only differences: psv_directions uses an underscore inste

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?

Steve Hill wrote: > It seems to me that instead of referring to a crossing by name, we should > just list its properties. e.g. something like: > > highway=crossing > crossing=uncontrolled|traffic_signals > island=yes|no > bicycle=yes|no > foot=yes|no > horse=yes|no +1. This is almost exactly w

Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering highways in the USA and elsewhere

Jeffrey Martin wrote: > I think free tagging is great, but we should not allow multiple > definitions for each tag. > A tag should not indicate both it's legal status and it's structure, > although one might > imply the other under certain circumstances. Well, that's an unfortunate fact of the 'hi

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline

Sven Geggus wrote: > Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already >> existed >> in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal. > > So let us break down the different suggestions and go on vor vote > now? > > As far

Re: [OSM-talk] namespacing of tags

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > Robin Paulson wrote: >> there a few proposals currently on the wiki that have comments >> regarding namespacing of tags. i understand the general concept of >> what it is, but why do we need it? it appears to me to be an >> unnecessary complication for a tag IMO they