Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

[John Smith]

--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
> To: "Cartinus" <carti...@xs4all.nl>
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Thursday, 30 July, 2009, 10:42 PM
> 2009/7/31 Cartinus <carti...@xs4all.nl>:
> 
> > When using maxheight / maxheight:physical /
> maxheight:legal the words themself
> > already tell most of the definition.
> >
> > maxheight -> for places where the difference is
> academic / for people who
> > don't care about the difference
> +1
> > maxheight:physical -> the name says it all:
> whatever fits under it
> +1
> > maxheight:legal -> a legal restriction of some
> kind
> -1
> why would you recommend different tags (maxheight:legal and
> maxheight)
> for the same thing in different countries? This seems
> strange to me.
> Just define explicitly, that maxheight is the legal
> maxheight, and you
> don't have to change any existent tags (in the areas I
> know) and
> retain consistency.

I agree with Martin, and I just wish I could have put it as well as Cartinus 
did.


      

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk