User talk:Jgpacker

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Floricultura, pomar e horto

Hello! About WikiProject Brazil/Referência. Do you speak portuguese? Do are you in Users: Brazil? I have a note about "floricultura", "pomar" and "horto" terms. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vejo que você fala português. Sendo assim, agora faço minha comunicação em português. Tenho observação a respeito dos termos "floricultura", "pomar" e "horto". Você participa do sub-fórum "users: Brazil"? Se sim, posso começar um tópico lá. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Olá, sim participo do fórum (fico inscrito na fonte/feed de artigos novos do sub-fórum). Acredito que possa utilizar já o [tópico de traduções]
Por um acaso eu estou vigiando esta sua página de discussão. Mas prática mais comum, entre usuários de wiki, é um falar na página de discussão do outro, sob um mesmo título, para estabelecerem uma conversação. Por exemplo, para me responder, você iria em User talk:Alexandre Magno e criaria um tópico "Floricultura, pomar e horto". — Alexandre Magno (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Já que estamos aqui, conversando em português, vou falar o que tenho para dizer.
Aqui na minha cidade, vamos à "floricultura" para comprar flores ou outras plantas e utensílios para o jardim, inclsuive adubo e remédios. Se está difícil encontrar a planta que queremos, o dono da floricultura — quem também planta — nos direciona a seu fornecedor de espécies específicas, que geralmente é um "horto" — alguém especializado no plantio, com estufas etc. em alguma granja do município.
Não me lembro de já ter ouvido o termo pomar nesse contexto. Acho que já ouvi para se referirem a um conjunto de árvores plantadas em uma praça (parque) por moradores da rua da frente. Árvores frutíferas.
Alexandre Magno (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Não entendi exatamente qual a observação. Isso é uma pergunta? --Jgpacker (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Já que você está envolvido na edição de WikiProject Brazil/Referência, eu quis exemplificar os usos que conheço para os termos "floricultura", "horto" e "pomar". Tentando resumir:
  • Floricultura: cultivo e revenda de flores e artigos de jardinagem
  • Horto: fornecedor de espécimes para o estabelecimento floricultura
  • Pomar: algo como um jardim de árvores frutíferas na margem de uma praça (parque)
Alexandre Magno (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Internacionalização de categorias?

Você chegou a ver Category talk:HOWTO#Proposal for HOWTO? — Alexandre Magno (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sua resposta foi movida para «User talk:Alexandre Magno#Internacionalização de categorias?».
Talvez eu vá a alguma lista, seguindo sua sugestão. Talvez isso não seja necessário. Não deveria ser! Significaria um wiki abandonado...
Não concordo com a união no prefixo Pt. Os projetos de mapeamento nacionais precisam de localização. Na minha opinião, o que pode ser feito é uma nação aproveitar páginas da outra transcluindo ou redirecionando. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Na Wikipédia tem a união devido ao caráter enciclopédico. Aqui e acolá há uma peleja linguística. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Eu aceito sua tréplica a respeito do prefixo Pt. Sem votação, fico com o que você está defendendo. É bem razoável. Por outro lado, se mais gente participar da discussão e vier a acontecer algo como uma votação, meu voto será pelo Pt-br. Sem uma "justificativa", pois aceito sua argumentação.
Por enquanto nós vamos fazendo as coisas com Pt-br, não é? Pois antes de mudar, precisamos abordar os portugueses, eu acho.
Alexandre Magno (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Vamos decidir no prefixo Pt

Eu quero sair comunicando na página "discussão" de cada usuário em: Category:Users in Portugal e subcategorias, Category:Users in Brazil e subcategorias, Category:User pt e subcategorias. Eu faço isso. Chamando para um página de discussão central com a questão e uma possível futura votação. Começo reproduzindo nela o que nós dois já conversamos. À medida que surgirem discordâncias, aí fazemos uma votação. Faço? Aqui nós não temos uma Esplanada como na Wikipédia. Fazemos em Category talk:User pt, então, chamando todo mundo para lá? — Alexandre Magno (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Vou fazendo... — Alexandre Magno (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ei... mas fui ver... são 1098 páginas iniciando com o prefixo Pt-br. No espaço nominal Principal. Enquanto são apenas 44 páginas com o prefixo Pt.
Alexandre Magno (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
É a comunidade portuguesa minúscula e devemos — pelo inverso — fazer a união em torno do prefixo Pt-br? Ou aprender e usar bots?
Devemos, por enquanto, ir negligenciando o assunto dos prefixos? Mesmo com a maratona? Não concordo.
Alexandre Magno (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ao meu ver, é melhor estarmos operando com o prefixo definitivo já antes da maratona, até para podermos encaminhar as questões de Category talk:HOWTO#Proposal for HOWTO também antes da maratona. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seria conveniente o Esquema para a tradução do wiki usando Categorias começar com prefixo certo. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Então eu vou seguir o plano de montar a discussão, e também postar no fórum. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Olhe Category talk:User pt. Vou chamar cada usuário PT. Depois, postar no fórum. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideia inicial para gerenciamento da maratona

O que segue é um rascunho. Podemos evoluí-lo para uma predefinição a ser usada em PAGENAME/status, página que seria transcluída em cada página sendo trabalha e também na página de listagem (gerenciamento do trabalho).

Legenda

Símbolo Significado
Atualizar
Revisar
Coisa rápida
Traduzir

A cor verde em um símbolo significaria "etapa concluída".

Referência: w:pt:Seta (símbolo)

Tarefas

Red x.svg  Buses
Red x.svg  Key:addr
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:route=ferry
Red x.svg  Key:segregated
Red x.svg  Tag:barrier=bollard
Red x.svg  Key:sidewalk
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:amenity=community_centre
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Key:bridge
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:amenity=school ↶ ↻
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:amenity=restaurant ↶ ↯
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:tourism=museum ↯ ‒ nas mãos de User:Jgpacker
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:leisure=sports_centre
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Key:traffic_calming
Red x.svg  Tag:shop=tyres
Red x.svg  Key:wikipedia
Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:shop=hairdresser ↻ ↯
Red x.svg  Key:second_hand
Red x.svg  Key:diet

Alexandre Magno (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposta de sintaxe

Em PAGENAME/status:

{{fisl15-status|+|Pt-br:Tag:tourism=museum|Jgpacker|+↶|-↯}}
{{fisl15-status|-|Key:diet|-⇄}}

Em PAGENAME:

{{fisl15-status}}

Na página de gerenciamento (ou melhor, "listagem somente leitura"):

{{fisl15-status|Pt-br:Tag:tourism=museum}}
{{fisl15-status|Key:diet}}

No futuro (na caduquice), esta página e todas as PAGENAME/status seriam marcadas para deleção.

Alexandre Magno (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Saída

Em PAGENAME:

Maratona de tradução do 15º Fórum Internacional de Software Livre
Página reservada para trabalho por User:Jgpacker. Status:
Saiba mais...

Maratona de tradução do 15º Fórum Internacional de Software Livre
O trabalho previsto para esta página foi executado. Você pode melhorar algo, se quiser. Status:
Saiba mais...

Maratona de tradução do 15º Fórum Internacional de Software Livre
É necessário que alguém assuma o trabalho previsto para esta página. Status: ↶ ↯
Saiba mais...

Cores poderão ser usada para formatar três modelos de caixa de aviso chamativos.

Na página de gerenciamento (ou melhor, "listagem somente leitura"):

Red x.svg  Pt-br:Tag:tourism=museum ↯ ‒ nas mãos de User:Jgpacker

É apenas um item de lista...

Alexandre Magno (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agora eu vou dormir. Pretendo fazer {{fisl15-status}} amanhã de manhã, se não houverem objeções. E se depois elas aparecerem e não poderem ser contornadas, é só vocês não usarem a predefinição. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A equipe usará MoPad (Etherpad). Então {{fisl15-status}} não foi e não será implementado. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think usage of tag Tag:building=kindergarten onRelation should be different from Tag:building=university and Tag:building=school?

I'm referring to this edit.. Usage of multi-polygons was reflected in my proposal of this tag Proposed_features/building=kindergarten (not yet voted). Xxzme (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think they should be different. I think building=school and building=university also shouldn't allow it on relations. Multipolygons count as areas, and not as relations. It might be a little confusing because taginfo doesn't actually differentiate between area and multipolygon, but it also doesn't differentiate between area and way (because the datatype area still doesn't exist). See Talk:Key:building#onRelation? for more details --Jgpacker (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm agree with user Pieren in point that onArea was always "closed way". At least since 2010. I can't link to tutorial page right now. Multipolygons are type of Relations and were always documented as onRelation, because they are not "closed ways" (i.e. onArea). Is there change on wiki or it just some users misunderstood original usage onArea? onArea is "closed way" and not (new area type, not invented yet). But I might be wrong in this. Xxzme (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait. Area used in Elements#Way section but multi-polygon under Relation Elements#Relation section. I don't understand anything right now. Xxzme (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The following page may help you: The Future of Areas. --Jgpacker (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sobre retirada de informações para etiquetação auxiliar de aeroway=runway

Em Talk:Pt-br:Tag:aeroway=runway#Retirada de informações para etiquetação. — Alexandre Magno (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Key:mandatory

Please, edit your personal opinion in the discussion. Don't present it as an official valuation.--Ulamm (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

reply

thanks for comment - reply here: User_talk:Danstowell#University_residential_landuse

Category:Template with translation strings

Hi Jgpacker, could you please add a short text description of the category to Category:Template with translation strings? I have problems to understand what it should be about. Thank you! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't have time yet, but I just added the description. It's meant to group templates which can be translated. Sometimes I find out that this or that template doesn't have a translation in portuguese, so I thought I should add this category to make them easier to find, so the next person can translate them at once, and not whenever they stumble upon one. I intend to add more relevant templates to this category later. --Jgpacker (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, fine! I have added Template:Translation out of sync. ;-) ... And added some links to the description. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

linkfixes are... dangerous

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=DE:ID&diff=1100120&oldid=956229 ;-) Happy mapping! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hahahahaha wow. I think my hand hit the laptop's touchpad or something like that. Thanks for revising. --Jgpacker (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Soft lane

Hi Jgpacker, although the proposal is well described and illustrated, now I send you illustrations on some differences, personally:

--Ulamm (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-compulsory roadside cycletracks.

Why didn't you read nor understand my statement in the talk page of that article?

  • In some contries there are compulsory as well as non-compulsory cycletracks, and the local decision which get what status is a highly political feature.
  • Some mappers are aware of it, some are not.
  • This way, if there is a roadside cycletrack and there is no tag bicycle=use_sidepath, nobody knows, if the question of compulsoriness has not been regarded, or if cyclists in this road have the free choice between cycletrack and carriageway.
  • Without bicycle=yes on roads accompanied by non-compulsory cycletracks, the database is painfully defective.
  • Maybe in Brazil, cycling on the carriageway is more dangerous than cycling on the cycletrack. But as statistics show, in most European countries it is often less dangerous to cycle on the carriageway than on a cycletrack, as motorists drive in a relatively civilized way, but they pay much attention to the carriageway in front of them and little attention to cyclists approaching on cycletracks, which causes a lot of accidents at intersections.--Ulamm (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Without bicycle=yes on roads accompanied by non-compulsory cycletracks, the database is painfully defective..
That's what I disagree with. User:PeeWee32 also disagrees, and he is the guy who made the effort to get the proposal of bicycle=use_sidepath accepted.
Please go to the tagging mailing list. There are more people paying attention there, so you can get opinion from more people.
--Jgpacker (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm discussing with PeeWee since a bit more than two weeks.
It was you and not PeeWee, who deleted my necessary additions moer than once.
It is not sufficient that you disagree.
You would have to prove that the assumption of a default value does not create chaotical desinformation on roads where compulsoriness, non-compulsoriness and ignorant tagging are possible as well.--Ulamm (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
What I'm arguing is that your additions are not "necessary". You are asking me to "prove" to you that the things that you just added aren't necessary, however when a number of users contest your addition, you should be the one "proving" they are needed. Oh, and please don't prove it to me, talk instead to the wider community of OSM, preferably through one of the mailing lists (which is the main communication channel in OSM of 90% of the community) because it's the community consensus that matters and not my opinion or your's. --Jgpacker (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll look to enter one or two mailing lists.
Nevertheless, every kind of street layout and traffic regulation is worth to be mapped and therefore needs adequate tools of mapping.
The tools need consensus, the mapping at all is legitimated by reality.--Ulamm (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding |group= in KeyDescription

I believe we have conflict in what we understand as "group". There 49 groups for me, they were before my edits. Most of them are listed at Map features.

I belive your understand of group is just reduced to "key". This approach works for simple groups like Shop. But it doesn't for access etc.

Sister template uses this semantic right now Category:Features, if you remove this functionality from ValueDescription then Category:Features will be left only with manually added cats. Most of wiki content use semantic "|group=map feature category" at least for ValueDescription Xxzme (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Template:ValueDescription should behave in a similar way to Template:KeyDescription, but I do not agree that these templates should add two functionally equivalent categories for the same attribute.
Also, if you want to add a feature to both of these templates, then add it in Template:Description instead, because that's where most of their functionality comes from.
--Jgpacker (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
One of the options to solve this would be to add categories such as Category:Key descriptions for group "annotations" to Category:Annotations. Personally I think it's not a bad solution.
By the way, if you want to change the categorization scheme, the specific template would be Template:DescriptionCategories.
--Jgpacker (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. There will be hacks because tag/key content placed horribly wrong right now but there somewhat working hack around it. Category:Key descriptions for group ''extract key name from title using hack here'', but |group=map features group semantic should be untouched. It was way before any of my edits and content obeys this logic already. Xxzme (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(1) Sorry, I didn't understand what is wrong right now with keys and tags.
(2) I also didn't understand what you mean by Category:Key descriptions for group ''extract key name from title using hack here''. That's not how it work right now. The group is the group, passed as a parameter.
(3) Oh, and personally I wouldn't be against removing the categories "Key description for group X" and so on, if you were to add the categories for features instead, but I don't really like the "group" attribute anyway (it's often not clear what can be put there and there can be tags which belongs to multiple groups and so on.. in fact, I see it only as one of these old mostly unused attributes), so I wouldn't be supporting this decision either (it's up to you).
(4) By the way, I didn't understand what you meant in here by we want to create category, but not include this main page (with Template:Feature) page in it..
--Jgpacker (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(1) Not with pages. English namespace is ommited and this is complicate writing templates (automatic categories) significantly.
(2) Yes, but we should actually watch at what we pass: we pass "Restriction" in Key:boat and Key:bicycle. Restrictions (note this name confusing with Restriction) - is map feature, this convention was before me, I just follow it everywhere at wiki.
(3) Here X should be "boat" and "bicycle" and not Restriction (from group parameter). To get these values you need to hack around fullpagename, therefore I mentioned my hack.
(4) Please look at Forward & backward, left & right you will see redlink at the bottom. After I created feature, I have to create category manually and add Languages in it. And I should do that for every language now. That is quite painful process now because of omitted EN:namespace.
-- Xxzme (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(3) I think you might be confusing "Key description for group X" with "Key description for key Y".
(4) Ok, I understood. But don't worry, you don't need to force yourself to create the categories. Trust in the (slow, but relentless) power of the community ;-)
--Jgpacker (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Uses semicolon in tag value

Do we really need category with single Key:opening hours page in it? I don't really care if it is manually updated list or manually updated category (both are terrible). In general, OSM community is against multi valued tags because they are hard to edit/process/write tools for them. opening hours is one of few exceptions and should be directly listed at Semi-colon value separator without links to cats. Xxzme (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are more keys that use semicolons than only the key opening_hours=*. I think categories are better suited for listing pages like this. I will add some other pages that are documented to use semicolon to this category, however there are some keys that allow semicolon but are not "officially" documented as such (e.g. cuisine=*). --Jgpacker (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Good, because this category had singla page for 1 year without any further edits after it was added. Well problem not in category, but manually placed category. We should add new parameter |usersusesemicolontoseparatevalues=yes to Template:KeyDescription and add category using template automatically, for each language! Xxzme (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Aren't template parameters also added manually? Do you mean that the parameters used in the **Description templates added to the english page should be the default values in each of their respective translated pages ? --Jgpacker (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
They are edited manually, but less places to make mistakes - the better. That would be perfect, but I'm not sure if we can do this (too many expensive calls?). At very least there will be less mess to edit/update: manual cats + manual parameters in description templates. Xxzme (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that in the short term it would be easier to ask the wiki admins to include some mediawiki tools such as HotCat.
Well we can always ask them, but how fast changes will be made? If made at all? (see their talk pages) I highly doubt in soon improvements in wiki organisation. We have ad-hoc translation for 6 years already. Extension:translate was proposed by it's developers at our wiki. Year ago they posted guide how to migrate wiki content to extension translate, but no single comment from anyone. Xxzme (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, there was a short related discussion in http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=459859#p459859
As a related topic, in the future I want to create a bot to automatically populate the Map Features page from a given list, getting the parameters from the **Description templates (but this is a discussion for another time).
How would you build taxonomy?
Do you plan build language Map feature pages based on English taxonomy? In other words <lang>:Map features will be simple translation of English counterpart. I strongly prefer this one but we should resolve issued like Talk:Landuse#Landuse_vs_Vegetation_vs_Landcover_cleanup_.28Category:Features.29.
Do you plan build taxonomies independently for each language? In this case you will have to map each taxonomy with each other. This is complex task and you will be alone maintaining your language taxonomy. I see no reason why you want to go this way.
I still didn't plan the specifics, but I will ask for feedback before doing something like this. Right now the plan would be to make the pages look as close as possible to way they already are, but without the redundancy and crazy syntax. It would work similarly to how pages with Template:Software2 have their info put on a table by a bot. --Jgpacker (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you plan to populate English namespace first? What your bot should do about language pages (JA:Map features)? Xxzme (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ideally all pages should be updated at the same time. I have to write down my plan first, but I don't think I will have time to do it anytime soon because of other projects I'm pursuing. --Jgpacker (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Well good luck then! Your bot might be handy if plan becomes a reality. Xxzme (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
--Jgpacker (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Namespace template?

Hi, I did some editing on namespace and created date namespace. It seems to me that many such uses could profit from a namespace template so that eg the prefix "abandoned:" could be cleanly defined (perhaps like {{key_namespace_prefix|abandoned}}) in a way analogous to {{key|abandoned}}. Don't know where to ask for such a feature? RicoZ (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe what you are looking for is something like {{Tag|abandoned|:=shop||yes}}, which results in abandoned:shop=yes. See Template:Tag for more details. --Jgpacker (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, helps a lot. Now.. is there anything analogous to {{KeyDescription ...}}?
No, extend Template:Description to Template:PrefixNamespaceDescription and Template:PostfixNamespaceDescription Xxzme (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is a template for this right now. I think this would need prior discussion because we could create a solution for other "attributes" of keys and tags (see here for a start). Meanwhile this kind of thing is done directly by categorizing the page, which is as machine-readable as template attributes, and which I believe is already done for most namespaces. --Jgpacker (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with ValueDescription?

Could you look at Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station and help get two ValueDescription working on the same page? The second one gets messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycenesbitt (talkcontribs)

Done :-) --Jgpacker (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

UK food hygiene ratings

Hi,

Thanks for info - but they don't appear to be implemented. Those I've added are actually in use !

Don't move pages from Category:portals without prior discussion

Talk:Google_Map_Maker#This_page_should_be_rewritten page Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service? was discussed was visible at wiki for 2 months untill you decided to move it as not reviewed by anyone. Xxzme (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I simply moved a page that represented the opinion of one user as a subpage of that user. Nobody reviewed the page you wrote. I don't think it represents OSM. I called people from the tagging mailing list to help review it [1]. A user thought the tagging mailing list isn't the best place for that thread, so he forwarded it to the (main) talk list [2]. I will move it back as a subpage of your user. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
1. I don't have to ANY page reviewed before I place it at (main) namespace.
2. Just FYI this text from FAQ. FAQ was "reviewed" millions of times.
3. Original text I copied [3] was written by some weirdo with nickname "Steve" [4].
4. Are you kidding me? Xxzme (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, you don't need to have a page reviewed to place it in the main namespace. However you are doing more than that: You are presenting the page as documentation which the OSM community made and agrees with (which I am claiming it's not true, and can be verified by seeing the mailing list thread above) and adding links to it in a considerable number of pages. You changed the original text significantly, and it needs to be reviewed if you want to present it that way. I see you don't want to put the page under your user namespace (you did revert the change twice after all). Which alternative do you propose ? --Jgpacker (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Try to make actual improvement to text instead of moving and abandoning it. BTW your move is absolutely useless since redirect to my page will be visible anyway: [5].
which I am claiming it's not true So what? Proofs? What is not true? Xxzme (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not abandoning the page, and that's exactly why I was still leaving the redirect in. I'm not trying to fix it because the page needs more than a little improvement, but I can't just leave it as an "official-looking" page. My issue with the page is that it's not generic at all: it's a comparison to alternatives with specific characteristics. The tone the page was written is also disagreeable and not representative of OSM. It's not just my opinion since there are other users with similar comments in the mailing list. --Jgpacker (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed features/Aerodrome

Hi,

Are you still interested in Proposed features/Aerodrome? I would like to enhance it with heliport=* (see the discussion page). -- Kocio (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm way less active on OSM right now, so I don't mind that you take over the proposal :-). You may want to check with Tinshack too (which was co-authoring the proposal), but I believe he most likely does not have enough time to continue it either. --Jgpacker (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)