This was of a great help, Jan. That tool is awesome!
Wouldn't it be the right time to go ahead with this proposal? I mean,
this is used for most of the routing softwares that uses OSM, including
OSMAnd.
Às 14:17 de 13/02/2020, Jan Michel escreveu:
On 13.02.20 18:02, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:
Thank you, Jan!
This was exactly what I was searching for.
So, for destination:ref you propose using ";;" for empty values and for
destination:symbol you propose "none"?
There are different options:
destination:ref = ;123;;
destination:ref = none;123;none;none
destination:ref = ;123; ;
I personally prefer the first one, but while interpreting tags I treat
all of them the same. In any case I would decide for one style and use
this for all tags. Note that 'none' as a placeholder might be
ambiguous in some cases, because some tags also have 'none' as a valid
value (e.g. maxheight = none) and then there is the case of the
Italian city 'None'.
How come this is not in the destination tag wiki?
This scheme was never officially proposed or discussed, it's just an
extension of the (old but never voted on) proposal for extended
destination:XYZ tags.
At least in Germany it's currently used to quite some extent to
represent more complicated signs properly, e.g.
http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/destinationsign/example/index.htm#way=153364494&include_sgn=1&include_way=1&country=DE
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
