<p>Over on the ML (and I stress, I have not read it all), <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-user-id="694425" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/systemed">@systemed</a> suggests there is sufficient consensus around <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-user-id="147741" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/tomhughes">@tomhughes</a>' implementation. See: <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-August/081220.html" rel="nofollow">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-August/081220.html</a></p>
<p><a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-user-id="705471" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/woodpeck">@woodpeck</a> mentioned the featured <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers" rel="nofollow">tile layer policy</a>. If we assume that as a starting point (i.e. copy-paste) then we tick off all 6 of the "Must" criteria and most of the "Should" list (albeit that the Unique and Interesting aspects could be debated seemingly forever!). The last "Should" item isn't really relevant in this use case.</p>
<p>Based on that, can I be so bold to suggest that this is now ready for inclusion?</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-412689177">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWnLSWTODZagD2GZo0030sjTV1nJkDlks5uQgARgaJpZM4TQ5cj">mute the thread</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABWnLVwC9TVP5Vhq8KLp-8uez1gZpttTks5uQgARgaJpZM4TQ5cj.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","title":"openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://assets-cdn.github.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avatar_image_url":"https://assets-cdn.github.com/images/email/message_cards/avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@RobJN in #1818: Over on the ML (and I stress, I have not read it all), @systemed suggests there is sufficient consensus around @tomhughes' implementation. See: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-August/081220.html\r\n\r\n@woodpeck mentioned the featured [tile layer policy](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers). If we assume that as a starting point (i.e. copy-paste) then we tick off all 6 of the \"Must\" criteria and most of the \"Should\" list (albeit that the Unique and Interesting aspects could be debated seemingly forever!). The last \"Should\" item isn't really relevant in this use case.\r\n\r\nBased on that, can I be so bold to suggest that this is now ready for inclusion?"}],"action":{"name":"View Pull Request","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-412689177"}}}</script>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-412689177",
"url": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-412689177",
"name": "View Pull Request"
},
"description": "View this Pull Request on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
},
{
"@type": "MessageCard",
"@context": "http://schema.org/extensions",
"hideOriginalBody": "false",
"originator": "AF6C5A86-E920-430C-9C59-A73278B5EFEB",
"title": "Re: [openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website] Added PlusCode functionality to search (#1818)",
"sections": [
{
"text": "",
"activityTitle": "**RobJN**",
"activityImage": "https://assets-cdn.github.com/images/email/message_cards/avatar.png",
"activitySubtitle": "@RobJN",
"facts": [

]
}
],
"potentialAction": [
{
"name": "Add a comment",
"@type": "ActionCard",
"inputs": [
{
"isMultiLine": true,
"@type": "TextInput",
"id": "IssueComment",
"isRequired": false
}
],
"actions": [
{
"name": "Comment",
"@type": "HttpPOST",
"target": "https://api.github.com",
"body": "{\n\"commandName\": \"IssueComment\",\n\"repositoryFullName\": \"openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website\",\n\"issueId\": 1818,\n\"IssueComment\": \"{{IssueComment.value}}\"\n}"
}
]
},
{
"targets": [
{
"os": "default",
"uri": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-412689177"
}
],
"@type": "OpenUri",
"name": "View on GitHub"
},
{
"name": "Unsubscribe",
"@type": "HttpPOST",
"target": "https://api.github.com",
"body": "{\n\"commandName\": \"MuteNotification\",\n\"threadId\": 323196707\n}"
}
],
"themeColor": "26292E"
}
]</script>