User talk:Flaimo

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Enhancing access tagging

Liking the look of what you're doing at Talk:Proposed_features/Access_restrictions#Suggestion_for_a_new_scheme. I've been giving it a few thoughts myself based on some difficult real-world examples I found in my area over at User:Achadwick/Mapping_style#Fancy_access_restrictions. Perhaps we could combine efforts?

Can we brainstorm these ideas somewhere else, and give it a talk page? Suggest Fancy Access Restrictions brainstorming and linking to it from the existing dead or mostly-dead proposals. Currently you're editing a mostly dead proposal's talk page, and it's hard to comment on what you're doing :(

Suggest renaming "kot" to "mode", and renaming "sig" to "user". Initailisms are bad generally, but also the usual British English expressions are "mode of transport" and "road user" - could we adopt that terminology? As for "con"ditions, a generalised suffix :<if/in>:condition=testvalue may be useful. Definitely agree on a suffix ":times" or ":time" using Opening Hours syntax: far nicer and more expressive than the current mess of hour_on and hour_off.

One thing that's missing: you need to define incorporate the sense a conditional suffix applies in into the tag key somehow: my stabs at this tend to look like


since restrictions can be expressed in both positive and negative senses: see the Cornmarket example on my user-subpage.

--achadwick 11:17, 26 April 2011 (BST)

funny that you are posting this right now. i am just in the process of moving my, rather long, comment to it's own page, since i thought it would blow up the comments page too much: i'm not quite done yet, since i want to enhance it a little bit with more examples and some more access keys. after that i'll try to incorporate your suggestions.--Flaimo 11:25, 26 April 2011 (BST)
i have renamed the access types to mode and role and "con" to "if". also i added your bicycle example at the end of the proposal. --Flaimo 12:36, 26 April 2011 (BST)

Had a bit of a brainwave on this over the weekend: User:Achadwick/Access_1.5_thoughts. I'd appreciate your feedback, and a possible merge? --achadwick 14:16, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Interpretation Proposal-Regeln

Hallo Flaimo. Da ich den Eindruck habe, dass wir in Talk:Proposed features/addr keys (2011-04) irgendwie aneinander vorbei reden, mal direkt und auf deutsch. Die "rule of thumb" sagt meiner Meinung nach: 8 einstimmige Voten für das Proposal oder (mindestens) 15 Voten mit einer Mehrheit für das Proposal. Der erste Fall ist nicht gegeben, denn das Ergebnis ist nicht einstimmig. Der zweite Fall ist nicht gegeben, weil die Hürde von 15 Stimmen nicht erreicht wurde.

Ich habe übrigens nichts dagegen, das Proposal als etabliert zu betrachten - das Thema betrifft mich kaum und bessere Vorschläge habe ich auch keine gesehen. Nur die Begründung für den Schritt sollte passen (sagt mein pedantischer Persönlichkeitsbestandteil ;)). --Tordanik 23:24, 5 July 2011 (BST)

ok, fehler meinerseits. ich habe "unanimous" fälschlicherweise mit "nicht anonym" übersetzt. dann hast du recht. ich lasse das proposal nich offen. wenn in den nächten tagen nicht eine flut an gegenstimmen kommt, dann setze ich es auf approved. --Flaimo 07:57, 6 July 2011 (BST)

Move shelter_type=wildlife_hide to key:leisure

IMHO the value wildlife_hide don't fit to shelter_type=*. Today it is used 72 times.
I think that this similars the tag leisure=bird_hide which is used 692 times. I suggest to move the value wildlife_hide to leisure=*. This combination is already in use. What do you think? --Rudolf 08:20, 14 June 2012 (BST)

you should start a discussion about that on the talk page of the key not on this page. --Flaimo 09:16, 14 June 2012 (BST)
Already done. --Rudolf 10:13, 14 June 2012 (BST)