[Tagging] Proposal ogham_stone

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Given that the initial RFC period has been completed, I would not consider
this to "reset the clock" for subsequent attempts at a vote.  In
my opinion, as long as adequate notice is given, once all input has been
considered and responded to, it's acceptable to move to a vote once the
discussion has gone quiet after a few days.  I don't think this is
documented anywhere but that seems to have been the convention.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 5:17 PM Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel at web.de>
wrote:

> I could live with historic=ogham_stone.
>
> It's just a pity that it'll be at least another 4 weeks until this will be
> approved, if it is approved this time, when this would make such a nice
> YouTube tutorial for my series. But better get it right first, before
> spreading the gospel.
>
> About the ref thing: Yes, it is very in depth tagging and doesn't need to
> be part of the proposal. I want to use the ref tag to be able to link to
> the Ogham in 3D page, like we do with mapillary ID and wikidata. They don't
> have all Ogham stones in their database, so we can't generically use the
> name to create the link.
> Am 07/02/2021 um 20:43 schrieb Yves via Tagging:
>
> IMHO, it's the complete tag key=value that convey the meaning, no need to
> be so much restricted by a former key.
> But historic=* is okay too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210207/9b43deb9/attachment.htm>