On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Henderson wrote:
> I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with
> confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way.
That's basically how I see your position: the value of sticking to a
strict reading of "natio
Steve Bennett wrote:
> That's basically how I see your position: the value of sticking to a
> strict reading of "national" and "international" is much lower than
> the practical benefits of using the four layers of network in a way
> that is comparable with other countries. I see it as similar to
Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
> That was me and I developed a custom system for me to manually check
> for duplicates before upload. Is there a particular POI that was
> accidently included?
I've been finding more. I've left this duplication for you.
Look at the toilet block in the middle of th
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, John Henderson wrote:
> In fact, a lot of those eyeing Aussie walking tracks online will be
> European backpackers, and they'll surely expect to see what I'm proposing.
>
Accepted as a fair argument for world-wide consistency.
Otherwise I support the SB arguments
I would gr
Liz wrote:
> I would grade Heysen and Bibbleman as National, because they are very
> important walking tracks.
I can live with that. Of the tracks within states, they're the long ones.
As the person who applied the route relation to them in the first place,
I've taken the liberty of upgrading
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:33 AM, John Henderson wrote:
> A major advantage I see is little or no inconsistency in the way
> different people tag routes. There will inevitably be disagreement
> about the RWN/LWN decision point, but that's better than having
> confusion about NWN/RWN as well.
I c
6 matches
Mail list logo
