On 29 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Aun Johnsen wrote: > Ok, we are on it again, the previous vote (that approved maxheight:physical) > is way past, and some discussion have passed on maxheight:legal. > > I think it is time to put the biasing from the previous proposal and vote > aside, and look on this with a clearer mind. In my opinion, the aproval of > maxheight:physical opens up for maxheight:legal, both of them with clear > names that can be used separately or together with maxheight, without > redefining maxheight. My recomendation is still to tag maxheight, even > together with maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal, but let these values > add more information about the restriction, and specially in countries where > both types exists side by side. There are countries around the world where > physical and legal restrictions have different signs, and even some places > where it is known to be placed physical obrstructions lower than legal > restrictions on roads.
Do you have examples of these differences between the physical and legal maximum heights, including photos, that can be included on the wiki page? Shaun > > The new proposal is located here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/maxheight:legal > > Aun > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
