On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer<[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/7/31 Cartinus <[email protected]>: > >> 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
+1 >> maxheight:physical -> the name says it all: whatever fits under it > +1 +1 >> maxheight:legal -> a legal restriction of some kind +1 > -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. No one's recommending different tags for the same thing. maxheight:legal would be for explicitly indicating a *legal* height limit, whereas maxheight is for indicating a height limit without further specification. There are two arguments against just changing the wiki definition of maxheight. Firstly, maxheight:legal is, in itself, less ambiguous than maxheight, and clearly differentiable from maxheight:physical. Secondly, I'm not so confident that maxheight (as it's currently used) universally refers to a legal restriction. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
