Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 27.08.2010 13:13, Norbert Hoffmann wrote: > M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a >> different way: >> amenity=bank >> amenity=atm > > Perhaps API v0.7 should allow this (again). This would spare so many > dicussions about how to avoid this. It

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Peter Wendorff
On 27.08.2010 11:37, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Tom Chance wrote: I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal. I

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Norbert Hoffmann
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a >different way: >amenity=bank >amenity=atm Perhaps API v0.7 should allow this (again). This would spare so many dicussions about how to avoid this. Norbert ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Tom Chance
On 27 August 2010 10:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable > that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told > that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account > because this is too cost intensive

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Alan Mintz
At 2010-08-27 02:49, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: 2010/8/27 Tom Chance : >> the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any >> application (AFAIK). >> > > I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? we "use" semicolons in cases

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/8/27 Tom Chance : >> the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any >> application (AFAIK). >> > > I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? we "use" semicolons in cases where 2 values have to be assigned to one key, but it is not beeing ev

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Tom Chance wrote: > I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? > > I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used > semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal. I've come across at least one situation whe

[Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Tom Chance
Martin, Thank you for the feedback. One quick question for the list... On 26 August 2010 18:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any > application (AFAIK). > > I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? I