<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">What I am suggesting;<br>
<br>
Stage 1 - Vote on office=diplomatic as a replacement for
amenity=embassy<br>
<br>
Once that is past <br>
Stage 2 - vote on diplomatic=embassy/consulate/?<br>
with embassy=embassy/high_commission/?<br>
consulate=consulate/consulate_general/?<br>
?=?/? <br>
<br>
Stage 3 .. if you have further things. <br>
<br>
That way each vote is on one issue only not the lot bundled
together. <br>
<br>
<br>
Once that is past On 13/11/18 12:22, Allan Mustard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c5f51678-078b-13ea-6ae7-c23457cd0d6a@mustard.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Warin, may I please
remind you that in your message of 31 October you were the
mapper who expressed great concern about loss of data?</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/13/2018 2:37 AM, Colin Smale
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:86e66e21469498d4748062d11cfd14d7@xs4all.nl">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
<p>On 2018-11-12 22:00, Warin wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored -->
<!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">Not contrived at all in these
days of tight budgets. I see no reason the inverse would not
work. I'll add it.</blockquote>
<br>
I think there are too many things in the proposal. Keep it
simple. Yes the 'extras' might sound nice but they add
complexity and each one is a point that can lead to someone
objecting to that specific thing and leading to enough no
votes that it fails.</blockquote>
<p>At moments like this I like to invoke one of my heroes:
Albert Einstein. One famous saying attributed to him is: As
simple as possible, but no simpler.</p>
<p>If you simplify complex realities too much, you lose valuable
detail. If it's complex, it's complex. If you want to leave
out a level of detail, such as being able to distinguish
between the different types of services provided on behalf of
multiple "tenant" countries in a diplomatic mission, then so
be it, but let's discuss whether it is desirable to leave that
out, and whether the resultant ambiguity is acceptable. Data
modelling means constructing an approximation to reality, and
is all about what details to keep in and what to leave out.
Once it is left out, it cannot be reconstructed from the rest
of the data. (If it can, your data model is not properly
normalised.)</p>
<p>If OSM is being limited to being suboptimal because of
politics and the inability to reach consensus, I would rather
the system was fixed instead of condemning the whole business
to eternal mediocrity.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>