2009/7/31 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) <[email protected]>: >> No, no, no. maxheight until now was clearly the legal maxheight. It is >> not explicitely writen on the wiki because you don't see the physical >> height in many countries here in Europe but only the legal traffic >> sign and the max height traffic sign is displayed on the Map Features >> page since january 08. >> I don't find any controversy about this interpretation in the archives >> on this ML, so we can assume that maxheight was until now the legal >> maxheight. We just need to clarify this point on the wiki and add a >> new tag for the physical maxheight for countries where it is available >> (call it maxheight:physical if you want) >> >> Pieren >> > No, you can only ASSUME that the current maxheight only use the legal form. > Have you counted usages in countries where the physical maxheight are > signed? Do you even know which countries such signs are available? Without > any statistics, you cannot know.
I have checked the statistics. In the whole Australia-Oceania region there are 42 maxheight-tags. http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Australia-oceania/En/grouplist.html In Europe it is used 4039 times. http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/grouplist.html In South-America there is no occurrence as of 23-Jul-2009 00:47. http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/South-america/En/grouplist.html In Asia there are 41 (not sure if some or all of those are the same as in Australia-Oceania), in Africa 2 maxheight-tags. Please check your 42 occurrences, whether they are physical or legal and this issue would be resolved. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
