> Personally I think if the BC2020i is to be revived mappers really need some > feedback on what has been done and what tags are of interest.
Hm, we tried to revive the wiki, a tried-and-true OSM methodology for doing EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with that idea? I've been trying to keep "the embers orange and warm" on this project (via its wiki) since January. https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020 If there is something wrong with that wiki (John Whelan, you have described its history both here in talk-ca and to me via private email any number of times), then re-write it. I think it is at least a start to describe what you (Canada) are trying to do, so if it or parts of it are useful, use it. On an upside, there are a lot of data there, (though some of it might be junk or outdated), and so as a corollary, on a minor downside, it could be said to be loquacious/wordy/overly detailed. On a MAJOR downside, "BC2020" (not suffixed with an "i" as that is rightly declared to be dead) "needs reviving." OK, revive it. If not via wiki, "because mappers really need some feedback" (it DOES mention Active Monitoring tools) and "what tags are of interest" (it DOES mention Tag Standardization" and "The data that could be mapped"), then HOW? The answer: (or at least an excellent one): use our already-built, well-established, good-for-our-community tools which WORK. Go! SteveA OSM Volunteer since 2009 _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
