On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 08:42:55AM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote:
2008/5/8 Christoph Eckert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
change that process?
IMO map features should be
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:01:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
* Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
particular tagging scheme.
* Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
complaining about what was going on [1]
May I take this
Hi,
For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
change that process?
IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
recommendations would be built on top what's actually used. Much more
2008/5/8 Christoph Eckert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
change that process?
IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
recommendations would be
2008/5/7 Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
using tagwatch is a good idea as a basis for proposals, but problems
arise when we have two ways of tagging the same type of item. how does
anyone decide which should be used? one must be more optimal than the
other. having two methods running
2008/5/8 DavidD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/5/7 Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
using tagwatch is a good idea as a basis for proposals, but problems
arise when we have two ways of tagging the same type of item. how does
anyone decide which should be used? one must be more optimal than
6 matches
Mail list logo
