You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way: a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable b) building=stable, building:use=<not stable>: looks like a stable, but used for something different c) building=<whatever>, building:use=stable: looks like <whatever>, but is used as stable
I assume, that the majority of who used building=stable in the past meant "it is used as a stable". Better? Martin 2012/10/15 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]>: > I would vote for defacto approved ;-) , if the definition wasn't in > disaccordance with the general definition building=<building-type> > > The proposal you quote is about a facility _used_ as a stable, not for > a building built as a stable. This doesn't invalidate the objects > tagged building=stable but it makes it disputable whether the mapper > was following the proposal or simply mapping a stable. In most cases > it will make no difference. Problems only arise for > buildings/structures that were not built as stables but are used as > such, and for buildings built as stables and retaining their structure > but being used for different purposes now. > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
