[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 13:17:18 UTC 2018
sent from a phone
> On 25. Sep 2018, at 02:15, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error:
It should better reference the hill proposal as “see also”. While there is likely discussion to be held about hills, simply calling it an ‘error’ is not productive.
While this “possible tagging errors” section has some sense in pointing out typical spelling errors and expected low usage synonyms, I find it more often than I’d like, overshooting the mark by discouraging new tagging ideas and dismissing tags with (at least slightly) different semantics.
Please look at these and remove tags from this section when you feel they are not actually “tagging errors”.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging