On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:17 +1000, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smith<[email protected]> wrote: >> Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2 >> differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and >> duplication. > > I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave > room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future? > > I am tempted to suggest maxheight:physical:bridge, > maxheight:physical:trees, etc., but that is probably unnecessary at > this stage. > > If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do something about it and get that information on the maxheight documentation. I am not sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a process going, point me there, the current documentation on maxheight does not support the needs for me, so my solution was to make another tag. I havn't seen you do more about it than to attack my attempt to solve this.
-- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
