User:Tordanik/Archive

Proposed features/Path

Hi Tordannik, I appreciate your comments about my vote and the idea that you "defend" this proposal. First, you suggest that highway=cycleway will continue to be used if we look the other votes. But this is not what is expressed in the proposal itself which deprecates the other tags (which is one of the fundamental problem with the voting system , where basically, we should stop the vote, rewrite the proposal and re-open the vote, etc... OR write somewhere that deprecation is not more in discussion). But for me, I don't see the interrest to say that a footway is designated for pedestrians and a cycleway is designated for cycles because it is obvious. If some tags are not clear enough as it seems to be for bridleways, then we just need a better explanation in the wiki (ps. I will add this comment in the voting page). And secondly, I also saw at the same time another proposal for highway=road. Where all those proposals have good reasons, the result is that we have generic names highway=unclassified (which is already misunderstood by many people), highway=path and highway=road which will increase the confusion, especially for new contributors. Pieren 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Life c ycle comparison

The relation section stated "will not irritate applications". This is incorrect - applications that are unaware of the relation will consider a tagged object to be open, and potentially routing engines will send people down motorways that don't yet exist. Chriscf 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified the statement to include cases where the objects are tagged, since if you leave objects untagged, people will invariably tag them. Chriscf 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I’ve answered on your talk page. --Tordanik 11:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I refer the honorable member to the answer I gave some moments ago - particularly the second half. :-) Chriscf 11:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a suitable compromise. Most things will survive someone making mistakes in the tagging, whereas if you need things to remain untagged, tagging them breaks it completely. Chriscf 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

spontanes Kennenlernen in Coburg

Hallo, ich bin am Sonntag 2. Nov. im Coburger Bahnhof am Stand des ADFC. Dort findet eine Veranstaltung zu 150 Jahre Werratalbahn statt. Würde mich freuen, wenn wir uns kennen lernen könnten. --edosm 14:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, leider bin ich an diesem Wochenende nicht in Coburg. Vielleicht ergibt sich ein andermal eine Gelegenheit. --Tordanik 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lanes

Hallo Tordanik,

Du hast Dich offenbar mit nebeneinander liegenden (Fahr-)Spuren viel auseinandergesetzt. Ich plane OSM für Blinde einzusetzen. Dabei ist es notwendig, daß auch Gras-Streifen oder Busch-Streifen zwischen Radweg und Straße erfasst werden. Es wäre schön, wenn Du das einfließen lassen könntest. Danke!

Lulu-Ann

Lit

Hallo Tordanik,

auf lit war die proposalartige Formulierung von mir so gewollt - offenbar wurde der Tag von ChristianW per Bot reichlich gesetzt, ohne daß er je durch ein Proposal ging.

Was machen wir nun damit? Er hat sich trotz Email nicht dazu geäußert.

Gruß Lulu-Ann

Hm. Das war mir in dieser Form natürlich nicht klar, ich hielt das für etabliert. Da jemand im Forum ohnehin gerade über Straßenbeleuchtungs-Tagging nachdenkt und womöglich bald ein Proposal baut, könnte man das dort dann noch mal mit aufnehmen und diskutieren -- die Key-Seite trotzdem erst mal so lassen wie sie ist und auf das dann laufende Proposal verweisen? --Tordanik 17:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ja, dann auf das laufende Proposal verweisen. --Lulu-Ann 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hallo Tordanik,

zu den Tagwatch-Links in den Templates hatte ich bei mir geantwortet. Es wäre nett, wenn du noch ein, zwei Worte dazu sagen könntest: ob rückgängig machen oder Links ins Deutsche korrigieren.
Da wir gerade bei Templates sind: was hältst du von diesem Vorschlag? --Malenki 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

noexit

Wooops ! Since I haven't read any comment about that, I thought it was just a pure remove which I wouldn't agree with, I'll undo my own revert. Sorry about that. Sletuffe 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your revert on Key:maxspeed

I don't see why METRIC 4 US! is a "off-topic site" for maxspeed=*. For sure it is related to the mph/kph issues and they have some nice unit-converters. --Phobie 12:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It relates to mph/kph issues, but it does not relate to tagging in OSM, which is the sole topic of key description pages on the OSM wiki. Nevertheless, I don't mind linking to the page for further information, I just think it doesn't fit into the "values" section (that section should be as short as possible and describe the usage in OSM). Is putting it into "See also" acceptable for you? If not, just move it to whatever section you want, I'm not going to start an edit war over this. --Tordanik 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)