On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Russ Nelson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com" target="_blank">nelson@crynwr.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">Martijn van Exel writes:</div><div class="im">
> But to come back to Richard Weait's original questions: Yes, I think<br>
> the DWG should act on behalf of the US community here even though it<br>
> seems to be a matter of conduct instead of a pure data issue.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree also.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that DWG has the authority to act, here. But as I understand it, the authority of DWG comes from OSMF, not from the OSM community.</div><div><br></div><div>If DWG wants to act on behalf of the OSM community, then their members should be appointed by the OSM community, not by OSMF.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Additionally, now would be a good time to work toward more formal standards for tagging. While I disagree that mappers should be bound by unwritten convention, I do think it would be useful to adopt RFC-style agreed upon tagging standards.</div>
</div>