User talk:Mueschel

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFC Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2)

Hallo Mueschel, nachdem das Fire Hydrant Extensions Proposal nicht die nötige Mehrheit bekam, gibt es nun einen zweiten Teil: Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 2). Gerade läuft das RFC. Es wäre schön, wenn du mal drüber schauen könntest, ob deine Bedenken berücksichtigt wurden und ob du dieses Mal zustimmen kannst. --MoritzM (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Different service tags for vehicles

Hi, how do you think this should be solved ? : [1]
That's now the 4th "approach" and it doesn't seem there would be any productive outcome on the mailing list,
as people seem to prefer to discuss the mail format instead of the original subject [2].
Even worse, the 4th format is currently being copied to more pages, see shop=caravan.

guard stone proposal

I did not try to "sneak in" any new tagging, I merely tried to adapt the proposal following something that had been pointed out in the mailing list. If you prefer me to delete the additional tagging which should have been brought to my attention before the voting process, let me know. I cannot please everyone, even though I am trying. B-unicycling (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

inscription:igl

Hi, I'm not familiar with that tag - what does the igl stand for? You brought it up on the ogham stone proposal page. B-unicycling (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We use the ISO 639 language codes to denote languages and add non-standard scripts using a hyphen, e.g. name:sr-Latn is Serbian language in Latin script or name:fr-Arab for French names in Arabic script. pgl and sga are the codes for the old Irish languages Ogham is used for. So, the tag for inscriptions in Ogham letters should be inscription:pgl-Ogham (I'm not familiar enough to tell if pgl or sga is suited). If I wrote igl, this was a mistake and should have been pgl.
A word about your proposal: I'm perfectly fine with the proposed main tag - but the additional tags you propose to use don't fit with established tagging schemes, so I can't cast a positive vote.
I see, thank you. I think rorym actually worked on all those tags. I didn't think it was gonna be so complex. But thanks for taking the time to explain.B-unicycling (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I guess I would have to stop the vote...According to here it should be pgl.B-unicycling (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually it should be "pgl-Ogam" because we use ISO 15924 script codes which are four letters long. As the mention of inscription tags is not an integral part of the proposal, I think that dropping this in the aftermath and replace with a reference to multi-lingual names should be fine.
Okay, cool. I'll bear it in mind. I'm doing a Youtube series on mapping for historians and I would like to do an episode on Ogham stones once the proposal is accepted. I'll sneak in the improvements then. Well, actually, not sneak in, but explain why to do it different.B-unicycling (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)