On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 23:40, Cartinus<[email protected]> wrote: > 3) The people who do not care/know about the difference are still going to tag > a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag.
Agreed. In countries where there are separate signs for a warning about the physical height of an object above the road, and a legal prohibition on vehicles over a certain height, I would have tagged both as maxheight before this discussion and, if I wasn't participating in it enough to read this debate, would continue to tag both as maxheight. In my part of the United States, the warnings outnumber the prohibitions by tens, perhaps hundreds, to one. Technically, it is only illegal to hit the low bridge, not to try to drive under it (unless there is another sign indicating otherwise,) but there isn't really a practical difference - if you're too tall to fit under the bridge, you don't want to drive along that section of road, whether it's legally prohibited or not. If the initial descriptions didn't say that it was for legal restrictions only, even if that was the intent, then I don't see how it can be redefined now once it has been out in the wild. Let maxheight be the tallest a vehicle can be to legally pass along a way without hitting an overhead obstacle, and you're not changing the interpretation that people could make from what's there. Use maxheight:legal and maxheight:physical if someone wants to make a distinction between the tallest a vehicle can legally be and the tallest it can be to pass without hitting something. -- David J. Lynch [email protected] _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
