Talk:Relation:site

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Status draft (Moved from Talk:Relations/Proposed/Site)

I do not understand yet why the status was downgraded. Maybe the description is not good enough. Or some mappers do not stick to the description. See the page heritage=* the section Case: a number of related objects are protected e.g. an ensemble. Or the German side of it. (On the English side is additional: site:type=heritage. I do not know if it is necessary.) An example is relation/3288954. Several buildings belong to a monument. The type=site is also rendered on historic.place example. Move the mouse over the icon in the middle and all related houses will be highlighted. Can you explain for me again was wrong with the tag?--geozeisig (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right, the status of this proposal should be "Proposed" because there was a RFC email in September 2011 and again in 2015. I have updated the proposal page with the changed status. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The proposal is now very old and no longer relevant. Things just got its way. The status is now at least in use. Of course, we can try to put wrong developments in the right direction.--geozeisig (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the talk page for the Proposal called "Site Relation". A proposal cannot have status "in use." The proposal statuses are: draft / proposed / voting / rejected or abandoned. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but I was redirected from the page Relation:site - Discussion. Maybe we should take the redirection out. --geozeisig (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Note the discussion above was copied and pasted from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relations/Proposed/Site&diff=0&oldid=1923633 --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)