On 18/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 17.02.2015 um 19:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo <[email protected]>: >> maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) > > -1, maxfoo was always defined as a legal restriction so this function should > go into your data evaluator but not be the rule for the data entering mapper
Allow me to disagree: * maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently is asking for trouble. * The vast majority of consumers only care about min(physical,legal); expecting them to know about and handle that particular quirk of the osm schema (instead of simply taking the maxwidth value) is asking for more trouble. * There is currently a grand total of 22 maxwidth:physical tags in the db (12500 maxwidth, 0 maxwidth:legal), and none of them have a complementary plain "maxwidth" tag (one could argue that this is poor tagging, like tagging name:en without name). So there's really no backward compatibility to be worried about (and this whole thread is dealing with a theoretical problem, not a practical one). * I didn't do an exhaustive search, but even looking at maxheight I didn't find any object where maxfoo isn't =< maxfoo:*. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/7J5 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
