The trouble with defining prices as geographic on the basis of it being “the price of something at a certain place” is that it doesn’t scale (your average supermarket carries thousands of products) and can often change very rapidly. That said, I am guilty of tagging prices of car parks so I’m not against tagging prices completely. Perhaps we need to make the distinction between price comparison (i.e. choosing the destination based on price) and routing (i.e. I want to go to destination x for duration y by car, which car park do I need?).

When it comes to currency I use ISO 4217.

It seems the Germans like duplicate tags since the country address is easy to deduce from the country polygon

I suppose this depends on whether you consider the “addr:*” tags to represent the postal address (what you’d need to write on an envelope) or an addresses for navigation (what you’d put into a sat-nav). If it is the former, consider the scenario where a business physically located in the UK uses a mail processing company in France to open, scan and email their correspondence (possibly to make things easier for their French customers). In this instance it is absolutely wrong to use the value of the polygon because you’ll end up with a value of “Paris, GB”.

Of course you could make the argument that “addr:country” only needs to be set on these edge cases but then you run into the problem all “default” tags suffer from which is that you can’t tell the difference between someone who omitted the tag because they are implying something and those that omit the tag because they didn’t consider it while mapping.

Err, if it is back-room dealing then why is it published in the minutes?

Also, the OSMF is asking something of contributors so why is it so bad that one of those contributors asks something of the OSMF in return?

"I expect many choose decline because they have no intention of continuing a few will revert back but not many"

Where can I view the statistics that lead you to this conclusion?

"Wishful thinking, perhaps?"

Perhaps, perhaps not.

What is wrong with erring on the side of caution? If you wait then we'll be in the same position and you've lost nothing. If you start destroying other people's work left right and centre then you risk creating bad feeling and damaging the community for years to come.

"I think clicking on decline is stating very clearly that they don't want to continue."

Why?

"Why on earth would you want to edit something and have it disappear soon after surely you want to keep your edits."

Because they believe that it isn't going to disappear, perhaps?

As someone who has declined the new CTs I find it rather presumptuous that you've decided that I'm anti-ODBL and that my edits are worthless. Just because I've not accepted *YET* doesn't mean that I'm not going to.

Anyway, why do today what you can put off until tomorrow! ;o)