gravitystorm at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 11:51:50 GMT 2007
On 3/16/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> The proposal for junction_ref (e.g. junction_ref='9' for junction 9 on the
> M11) had a small and equivocal vote.
> In theory it was approved, but I don't feel comfortable moving this to the
> features page given it was only 3 people including me and was with
> One respondent said the reference should be attached to the junction itself,
> another that some junctions have both a name and number. I've addressed
> these points in the page, and in the interests of moving forward, have
> extended the voting period to March 31.
I appreciate the work you're putting into the proposals process.
However, I won't vote on this, or practically any proposal, without
seeing what is actually being proposed (as opposed to the general
concept, which is often quite clear). I see a long conversation on
that page, but nothing else. Nothing technical, nothing specific.
On the page for each proposal, please make sure that the proposal is
clearly stated. Is this applied to a node, a way, an area etc? Is it
junction=, junction_ref= or what? It's even worse if I read the
caveats that people have put on their existing votes...
(and on this one, i'd rather see numbers and names in a separate
space, rather than backslash, semi colon or colon deliniated as the
various comments are intermingalling. But I won't vote either way when
I can't see what I'm voting for.)
More information about the talk