review of proposed changes and greater chance that problems with a new tagging will be spotted
boost to documenting version preferred by proposal on wiki editors of various OSM-related software gave some weight to such approvals, though it varies and some ignore it completely Oct 22, 2022, 15:22 by annekadis...@web.de: > What is the use of the proposal process then? > > Anne > > On 22/10/2022 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadis...@web.de> wrote: >>> >>> Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about >>> the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key >>> from site_type to archaeological_type >>> >> >> such a retagging would be a waste of time, I would not pursue this idea, and >> given the high majority that is required nowadays it is also unlikely to >> succeed. >> >> You could just continue mapping the settlement sites and crannogs as you >> please and have a wonderful time, document the tags, speak about it so that >> other people interested in mapping this kind of feature can join you. :-) >> >> Cheers Martin >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
