Martin Raifer

> You, wearily click OK in the server-side error popup, then you try to fix it, try to send it again, and an authentication window pops up, and clicking next...

> I hope there will be continued openness to evolving these presets as further proposals reorient the crosswalk tags away from a one-size-fits-all model Definitely :+1: As I see it,...

> I'm not sure why this matters. It matters in this case because not everyone agrees whether the `crossing:signals` tag should be used or not (see [example](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/crossing:signals#Status_of_this_proposal?)). The [proposal process](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process)...

> Changing from crossing=marked to crossing=uncontrolled seems out of scope, given the title of the PR doesn't mention this Sorry for missing this in the title. My intention was to...

> the proposal process […] is not required for a new tag to become established. I don't disagree, but the proposal process does also have benefits: On the one hand,...

> I think that eventually, it would probably be a better user interface if these options were presented using a pictorial form I've implemented [this suggestion](https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/590#discussion_r979915579) in iD now: ...

I've merged this branch now, to not let it sit around any longer and get stale. I think it does improve the tagging schema (e.g. by adding a way to...

Another aspect which I just noticed: the `Type` field prominently includes the value `house` in the placeholder (and list of auto-suggestions), which doesn't make any sense in the context of...

see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6168 for some background

I was also baffled by `yes` being the most popular value of the `construction` tag with 230k uses. :shrug: