[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

[Mateusz Konieczny]

review of proposed changes and greater chance that problems with
a new tagging will be spotted

boost to documenting version preferred by proposal on wiki

editors of various OSM-related software gave some weight to such
approvals, though it varies and some ignore it completely


Oct 22, 2022, 15:22 by annekadistel at web.de:

> What is the use of the proposal process then?
>
> Anne
>
> On 22/10/2022 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>>> On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel at web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
>>> the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
>>> from site_type to archaeological_type
>>>
>>
>> such a retagging would be a waste of time, I would not pursue this idea, and given the high majority that is required nowadays it is also unlikely to succeed.
>>
>> You could just continue mapping the settlement sites and crannogs as you please and have a wonderful time, document the tags, speak about it so that other people interested in mapping this kind of feature can join you. :-)
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://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/20221023/9bf10f81/attachment.htm>