On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > > > I see you've changed it from railway:incline:traction= to > > railway:traction= - but I still don't understand the need for the > > railway: prefix. Am I missing something obvious? What's wrong with > > just traction= ? > > I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to > something other than railway,
Fair enough > which can share a way with a railway. Very, very unlikely. > The simple/plain traction= would preclude this. It could be modelled with two ways, if this was the case. Even sharing nodes (if it needs to be impossible to edit!). Or relations. But you seem to be making up extremely unlikely hypotheticals in order to back up your desire to use namespaces where they are completely unnecessary (c.f. piste:lift:capacity). I can't even think of a situation where the capacity= tag is ambiguous, and it's being used for a number of capacity-related purposes, never mind this traction= tag which so far only even has one purpose. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
