<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25-Jan-18 05:53 AM, Helge
Fahrnberger wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABvsv+WkK_qzvSQXSbAu7E2qhctp4qg--Hf8VSLwFp_2haieag@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<div class="gmail_default">Hi Marc,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">I did send an RFC, over a year
ago: <a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030270.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030270.html</a></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Caused some positive comments on
the discussion page and quite some people actually using the
tag.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">As for the text on the proposal
page itself: I intended it for the audience here. I agree
that the tag description for a general mappers' audience
needs to be different. (Not very familiar with the proposal
habits.) I promise to draft a better tag page after voting
;-)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you change the tag .. then what are 'we' voting on? <br>
Get the proposal well defined .. it has been in 'comments' for years
.. so why was it not improved during that time? <br>
There were no changes from September 2016 to Jan 2018. <br>
<br>
Looks to me like not many people here have an interest in this. <br>
But in principle - if voted as an 'approved' tag then there should
be no basic changes to the meanings. <br>
So the description should be very good before voting is requested,
not changed afterwards to something the voters have no say in. <br>
</body>
</html>