sent from a phone
> On 9 Mar 2017, at 19:39, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> I believe you are mistaken here.
you are of course right. (It would have worked for all cases I had in
mind/mapped so far, but it won't work in general).
Insisting on the original definition isn't
Am 09.03.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> Your proposed change would, therefore, make data mapped using these keys
> mostly useless due to the unresolvable ambiguity. In my opinion, that
> kind of cost is not worth it.
I oppose the proposed change for exactly the same reasons.
On 08.03.2017 18:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
building:levels - building:min_level < 0
I believe you are mistaken here. Consider the following example:
building:levels = 2
building:min_level = 1
According to the Simple 3D Buildings standard, this means that there is
2017-03-09 6:04 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> I'm not now commenting on whether the proposal is good or not, but other
> redefinition proposals have been shot down for numbers much less than the
> number given in the argument above.
Yes, it is not completely ignorable,
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> there are only 33 991 objects with a building:min_level tag now
I'm not now commenting on whether the proposal is good or not, but other
redefinition proposals have been shot down for numbers much less than
I propose to deprecate the current definition of building:levels which is:
- building:min_level is the amount of levels of the underneath
building_part below the tagged building:part
- building:levels=building:min_level + amount of levels for this part
in favor of