[Tagging] Traffic_sign discussion

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Oct 9 20:27:01 UTC 2018


Hi,

On 10/09/2018 05:42 PM, yo paseopor wrote:
> It is not the first attempt to do that. Last days, with iD
> implementation and my message I have think it was the solution. Also I
> have waited some days and communicate to this list my intentions to
> adopt the proposed iD scheme. But when I start to do the
> modifications... People complains about it (I am sorry if there was some
> errors "translating" to the new scheme).

Yes, DWG has also received complaints about these edits, and I am in the
process of reverting them.

At the very least you should have established a consensus on this list
for the precise edit you want to perform. You should have said: I am
going to load objects tagged so-and-so, and I am going to apply these
modifications using these tools.  (consensus doesn't mean everyone has
to be in favour, but you simply went ahead and changed things and wrote
in your changeset comment "#fastag #traffic_signs Apply
traffic_sign:direction tag to avoid problems with new iD editor as an
agreement on tagging list" which almost sounds like you were fixing a
bug and there was consensus, neither of which is strictly true.

I'm not saying these edits cannot ever be made, but they can certainly
not be made in a buggy fashion after a half-hearted attempt at
discussion with no discernible outcome.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the Tagging mailing list