2010/4/27 colliar :
> I think we need to expand the values of embankment and cutting as only yes is
> not much information and I often have ways with cutting on one and embankment
> on
> the other side.
>
> I would propose embankment=both/left/right/none and
> cutting=both/left/right/none
in th
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:05 AM, malenki wrote:
> I already use embankment=left/right. But I'd say embankment=none is
> superfluous - if there is none, none is to be tagged.
Maybe, but as always, the problem with not tagging is you can't
distinguish between "there is an embankment but no one has
colliar wrote:
>I think we need to expand the values of embankment and cutting as only
>yes is not much information and I often have ways with cutting on one
>and embankment on the other side.
>
>I would propose embankment=both/left/right/none and
>cutting=both/left/right/none
+1
I already use e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I think we need to expand the values of embankment and cutting as only yes is
not much information and I often have ways with cutting on one and embankment on
the other side.
I would propose embankment=both/left/right/none and cutting=both/left/righ
4 matches
Mail list logo
