<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>If we have inconsistent tagging of unisex=yes and it is unclear which<br></div><div dir="auto">is its meaning then passing proposal does not really solve it<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">unisex=yes data will still have the same problem<br></div><div><br></div><div dir="auto">in case of such damaged tag[1] it would be better to introduce a new one<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(though if vast majority is using this tag in this way and it merely reaffirms it<br></div><div dir="auto">then it is fine, but <br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender#Rationale">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender#Rationale</a><br></div><div dir="auto">does not read this way)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>17 gru 2022, 23:16 od illiamarchenko92@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto"><div><div>Thanks for feedback! <br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">Marc_marc <<a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:marc_marc@mailo.com">marc_marc@mailo.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>Le 17.12.22 à 21:58, Illia Marchenko a écrit :<br></div><div> > Gender proposal is ready for voting. After the previous vote, this <br></div><div> > proposal has been reworked. I plan to start voting in a few days.<br></div><div> > <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender</a> <<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender</a>><br></div><div> <br></div><div> Isn't it good practice to have an RFC after the last change<br></div><div> (i.e. today) ?<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">RFC isn't voting. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>Always pushing to go faster only leads to no votes and starting over-<br></div><div> in skimming the proposal, i didn't understand how redefining the meaning <br></div><div> of 3 tags will remove the ambiguity of one of the (unisex=yes)<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">This proposal isn't limited to clarification of the unisex=yes. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>Don't expect all contributors to read the counter-intuitive explanations <br></div><div> you offer.<br></div><div> a =segrated =not-segrated value would be much more intuitive<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">I added female=separate and male=separate to the proposal. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>