Nop
A very good way of trying to draw some of the thoughts together - although a
very challenging project! Full marks for the effort anyway! I have added a
few extra bits and pieces to the wiki page to highlight some more existing
tags and practices that probably need to be brought into a
Nop wrote:
Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb:
Official is new and has only one meaning.
From Map features: official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode
of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign.
I really do not see where the use of designated has differed from this
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
In the UK I would tag such a path as
foot=designated;bicycle=permissive;
and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the
generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path
(though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved)
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The deprecation of footway/cycleway was
voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was
rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/8/13 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication
Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated
are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give
information on possible use, but not about the legal
Hatto von Hatzfeld wrote:
On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path you may count
how many people approved the proposal but explicitly opposed the
deprecation of existing tags.
Yes, many participants opposed the deprecation, as did I. However, I
wanted to keep those tags as
).
How to resolve?
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk]
Sent: 17 August 2009 09:14
To: Roy Wallace
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote
... but, rightly or wrongly, I do not think I am alone in using
highway=footway for all paths intended primarily for pedestrians whether
urban or rural, designated or not, designation=anything - the only real
exception I make is (mostly) in rural areas where the path is clearly
informal and of
2009/8/17 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com:
... but, rightly or wrongly, I do not think I am alone in using
highway=footway for all paths intended primarily for pedestrians whether
urban or rural, designated or not, designation=anything
+1
- the only real
exception I make is (mostly) in
Hi!
Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb:
I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace designated by official? I
do not see that designated has been used in the past with a meaning
differing from what official would be used for in future.
Or did I miss anything in this discussion?
Yes. :-)
Nop wrote:
Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb:
I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace designated by official?
I do not see that designated has been used in the past with a meaning
differing from what official would be used for in future.
Designated is linked to footway/cycleway and there
Hi!
Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb:
Official is new and has only one meaning.
From Map features: official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of
travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign.
I really do not see where the use of designated has differed from this
definition.
So a public footpath which the council has converted into a cycleway
(part of a future cycle network if the council ever commit funds to
complete their decade old plan) which is segregated in some sections and
unsegregated in others is possibly a footway with bicycle=permissive?
I think I?ve
Harris
-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2009 23:37
To: Mike Harris
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Nick Whitelegg
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote
2009/8/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive;
and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the
generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path
(though
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Martin
Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive;
and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment,
Jason Cunningham wrote:
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated;
horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It
would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than
foot/bicycle; they are not.
I would similarly
.
UNQUOTE
There is apparently, perhaps unsurprisingly, some ambiguity in the wiki.
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 August 2009 23:57
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
[mailto:jamicu...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 15 August 2009 00:41
To: Nick Whitelegg; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated;
horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right
To: Nick Whitelegg; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it
does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This
website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK
(a) or 1(b) applies then I would say designation=public_footpath,
foot=yes, bicycle=yes.
Mike Harris
_
From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk]
Sent: 15 August 2009 13:01
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
So a public footpath which
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Roy
Could you give reference to your wiki quote? I can see for =designated at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
QUOTE
This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically
the signpost has any legal
implication or whether an unsigned path (many of them!) carries legal rights
of access.
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:06
To: Nop
Cc: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs
+1
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Nop [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de]
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:43
To: Roy Wallace
Cc: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi!
Roy Wallace schrieb:
If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I
believe
]
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:54
To: Nop
Cc: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally
dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei
That's yes, not designated.
Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually
I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively
designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well
as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a
person and a picture of a bicycle).
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated;
Hi!
Nick Whitelegg schrieb:
I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively
designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well
as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a
person and a picture of a bicycle).
Agree here. UK bridleways for
2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei
That's yes, not
2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 13:08 +0200, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
[In Norway you can legally cycle on footways; in England you can't]
Using the designated value appropriately would work with both. In
England, tag with highway=path (or track);
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems
to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in
practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated;
horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It
would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than
foot/bicycle; they are not.
I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
I think it is time to separate tagging of traffic laws into a separate
namespace from purely geographical map features. The information is
useful, but the current concept of OSM tagging is not designed to deal
with it
Hi!
This discussion seems to be going the same way as it always does - in
circles. :-)
So I'd like to try again for a more general statement and summary.
The need for change
First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem
and that we need to (re)define something to
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
The need for change
First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem
and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again
been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done
feature!
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 August 2009 09:21
To: Morten Kjeldgaard
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk
-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=yes (but allowed)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
In Norway you are allowed to cycle on all
-Original Message-
From: Nop [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de]
Sent: 13 August 2009 10:02
To: talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi!
This discussion seems to be going the same way as it always does - in
circles. :-)
So I'd like to try again for a more general statement
On 12/08/2009, at 10:38 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
But if there is no default for foot, then what is
routing software to do? If it uses the way, the default is yes, and
if
doesn't, it's no. So the notion of no default does not make at lot of
sense to me.
...
With highway=path, the wiki
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pieren wrote:
No, there is no problem if you accept that some values are implied by
default for the whole world (e.g. foot=no for highway=motorway) and
some need a default value by country/region which can be documented on
the wiki (highway=cycleway + foot=yes/no).
2009/8/13 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication
Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated
are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give
information on possible use, but not about the legal situation.
Introduce a new
I'm afraid I have just been completely overwhelmed by this thread and
the other similar ones over the last couple of weeks while trying to
have a life too. I am also conscious that it is a discussion that
reignites in different guises every few months. I apologise if I'm
repeating what's
I think the underlying problem with path is that it creates overlapping
definitions. Among data users there is a strong preference for tag
combinations to be hierarchical, and I think that preference is reasonable.
While having to deal with doctor and doctors is only a mild pain, trying
to deal
On 13/08/2009, at 10.20, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten
Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
I think it is time to separate tagging of traffic laws into a
separate
namespace from purely geographical map features. The information is
useful, but the current
David Earl wrote:
So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple,
established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use
classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions
to these according to evidence on the ground. Add specific legal
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Richard
Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The deprecation of footway/cycleway was
voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was
rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an answer.
It was? Maybe
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a
particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including
things like under 12 or not on a Sunday if that's the normal
situation). Then
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Norbert
Hoffmannnhoffm...@spamfence.net wrote:
I say: forget all defaults and store all those values in the database.
Those only partly documented defaults are the cause of the discussed
problems.
+1. Everyone seems to agree that the current use of
2009/8/13 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com:
How do you know what is legal vs conventional? Except if you are in
a privileged position, it can only be from evidence on the ground, in
which case what would you do different in most cases?
I don't think it requires a privileged position in a
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem
and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again
been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following
existing
Hi!
Roy Wallace schrieb:
If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I
believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that
designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the
ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical
features, as
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated
to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it
could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration
for all
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
There is no consent on which way to go to express the
strict use case.
Does there need to be?
Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a technical
point of view all you have to do is create/get an extract of a bounding
On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote:
There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case.
I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country-
specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowing these
kinds of things), or we have highway=cycleway
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Going the other way and not having highway=footway imply
any value for
bicycle would mean that people like me could tag something
as a
footway and say that I don't know whether it's suitable for
cycling on
by leaving the
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between
bicycle=allowed/suitable and bicycle=road sign. This is not about
marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise
enough to make deductions
On 12 Aug 2009, at 07:02, John Smith wrote:
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
There is no consent on which way to go to express the
strict use case.
Does there need to be?
Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a
technical point of view all you
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
on foot, I need
to know whether it is an unsigned
Roy Wallace wrote:
I have no idea what you would consider suitable for the common
cyclist. Please, at least write the criteria down.
Since it's the not signposted ways that are not evident and a common
cyclist is not looking for mountain bike trails, I'll try: shout if you
disagree.
Absolute
John Smith schrieb:
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use
case.
Does there need to be?
YES!!!
Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a
technical point of view all you have to do is
Hi!
James Livingston schrieb:
On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote:
There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case.
I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country-
specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowing these
kinds of
Hi!
Gustav Foseid schrieb:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de
mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between
bicycle=allowed/suitable and bicycle=road sign. This is not about
marking a default, this is about
Nop ekkehart at gmx.de writes:
But the opposing argument works just the other way: If I look up
designated in a dictionary it means marked with a sign and it is the
only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany
bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess
tags. You
just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing
all the
important information in access tags. This is a possible
way to go if we
can achieve consent on it,
Shaun McDonald wrote:
... Are you
really trying to force cyclists on to major roads?
As a pedestrian, I can see advantages with this...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess
tags. You
just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing
all the
important information in access tags. This is a possible
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
No. You should use highway=cycleway;bicycle=no if you have a cycle
path that you cannot walk on. Routing software already supports this.
They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you
really trying to force cyclists on to
On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:51, Liz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
No. You should use highway=cycleway;bicycle=no if you have a cycle
path that you cannot walk on. Routing software already supports this.
They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you
really
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:55 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess
tags. You
just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing
all the
important information in access
This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be
suitable for
DavidD wrote:
Mapping is enough work as it is without having to frequently check
proposals in the wiki.
A proposal should be be announced on the mailing lists, so you don't
need to check the wiki. That doesn't help people who don't read the
mailing lists, but the lack of a central communcaition
In my opinion, suitability is a whole new topic that should'nt be
represented by *mode_of_transport*=yes/no, as it's highly subjective.
yes/no should solely describe the legal status.
Agreed. One can use the surface tag to do this together with SAC_scale
etc (with which I'm not 100% familiar but
Hi!
Nick Whitelegg schrieb:
I have not got round to marking these up yet, but my intention (German
users, please feel free to tell me otherwise!) would be to tag the
waymarked paths as
highway=path|track; foot=designated
and the unwaymarked tracks as
highway=track; foot=permissive
On 12/08/2009, at 8:14 PM, Pieren wrote:
Note that in France, pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways. I don't
see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read
somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it
mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all
John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com writes:
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Going the other way and not having highway=footway imply
any value for
bicycle would mean that people like me could tag something
as a
footway and say that I don't know whether it's
[waymarked paths in Schwarzwald, Germany]
If you use designated for the waymarked ways without legal impact, then
you need yet another tag (e.g. official) for the real cycleways with
roadsigns and legal impact.
Thanks! In that case I'll just use permissive. Are there any
Germany-specific tags
Greg Troxel wrote:
John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com writes:
It's most likely going to have to be jurisdiction specific, not just
country specific in some instances. Going the other way and dealing
with footway for example, NSW Vic doesn't allow cyclists on
footpaths, but ACT does.
On 08/12/2009 05:14 AM, Pieren wrote:
see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read
somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it
mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all other motorways in the
world ?
No, that would make no sense because most
The highway=footway is IMHO an alias for the more complex highway=path
foot=yes surface=paved etc. construction. I think aliases are
perfectly legitimate constructs when dealing with very common
situations, and furthermore, much easier for newbies to remember and
deal with.
Perhaps, but I
2009/8/12 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
as it is already suggested in the wiki
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples) (and
btw: there is at least two tracks on the path-page as examples:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/0/07/Path-motorcarnohorseno.jpg
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=yes (but allowed)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
In Norway you are allowed to cycle on all footways, unless explicitly
forbidden.
-
2009/8/12 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=yes (but allowed)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional
Shaun McDonald schrieb:
They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you
really trying to force cyclists on to major roads?
Huh? Which ones would that be? mkgmap and OpenRouteService certainly do.
___
talk mailing list
Nick Whitelegg schrieb:
I would apply a similar approach to paths too. I have no idea of exactly
what the German law is on this, but when I was in the Schwarzwald last
month, the paths/tracks in the forest were either waymarked by
yellow/red/blue diamonds, or not waymarked at all (apart
Hi!
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei
That's yes, not designated.
bye
Nop
2009/8/13 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
highway=footway (not suitable)
bicycle=dedicated (signed)
A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me.
why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei
That's yes, not designated.
Your
On 08/12/2009 12:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
so the routers don't send the ambulances that way if it's shorter?
That's meant to be interpreted as emergency=destination. As far as I
know, emergency vehicles are pretty much allowed to go where they need
to; this gets back to the idea of
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:12:10AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
- Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more
complex meaning?
I don't think there is any such thing as a generic trail. I think
highway=path should simply imply that the way is a physical route used
On 11/08/09 01:57, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 08/10/2009 05:31 PM, Liz wrote:
I would consider that if we have thousands of mappers, that we should set a
quorum for a vote
so that unless at least x hundred people vote the vote is not valid
From
Hi,
For my mind this starts to be far too complicated for most of the mappers and
users as well. Let's assume there is a smallish way/path/track or whatever it is
called. Anyway, something that is not meant for car traffic. I would believe
that majority of people would be satisfied if they just
On 11/08/09 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote:
That's a completely ridiculous quorum when we have 1 active mappers.
If the process says that eight people can get together and tell
thousands of people that they've been doing it wrong
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:02:28 +0100, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 11/08/09 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
What would you suggest? It is quite possible that the effect of
increasing the number of necessary votes will only result in slowing
down progress. Do you instead expect that it would
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly
be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that
hasn't been tagged before.
Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal for a new process in these
situations.
But
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:23:09 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tom Chance wrote:
Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly
be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something
that
hasn't been tagged before.
Which is precisely why I made a simple
On 11 Aug 2009, at 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
Is tagging the primary users intended to use the way verifiable? If
not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
introduced into the wiki only
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
1 – Nobody can actually agree what highway=path means so it is being used
in different senses all over the world, which reduces its usefulness to
near zero
Perhaps it really *is* useless and it was good that our process
demonstrated that?
We currently have no process
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly
be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that
hasn't been tagged before.
Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org
On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already
exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse
if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions
Shaun McDonald wrote:
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki
for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the
I'm all for referring to that verifiability where it comes
2009/8/11 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org
On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already
exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even
worse
if you want
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
