Vào lúc 00:23 2022-11-06,
easbar.m...@posteo.net đã viết:
Ok, sure, as far as I am concerned it doesn't have to be `unrestricted`
and could just as well be `none` or `no`.
But at least there seems to be consensus that
a) The `except` tag could/should be replaced with such a
`no/none/unrestricted` value for the `restricted:` key
"Replaced" is too strong for now. I'd suggest pairing it with except=*
until after a transition period, because the except=* key is already so
entrenched among data consumers. The consequences of missing an
exception are pretty severe. Dual tagging also mitigates the fact that
this discussion has only involved a few of us. You never know what
concerns will come out of the woodwork after the fact.
The length of the transition period is an open question. See the other
thread about deprecating amenity=hospital in favor of healthcare=hospital...
b) Using `restriction:` and `restriction` for the same relation should
be discouraged except for using `restriction:xyz=no/none/unrestricted`
This is an interesting way of putting it, that a key should have only
one possible value, apart from conditionals. But I guess we already have
some keys like that, such as noname=*.
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
