2015-11-02 11:45 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <[email protected]>: > On 2015-11-02 11:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2015-11-02 11:16 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <[email protected]>: > >> The second issue is that the value part of the KVP is redundant - the >> presence of the key is enough. >> > > not if you consider values like "no" and "only". > > > > The "no" would be indicated by the absence of the tag (we are not going to > add a sells:*=no for everything it doesn't sell, are we?) > The "only" would be indicated by the absence of any other sells:*=* tag >
that's the difference between explicit and implicit mapping. If you are explicit, you know that it should be like that, if you rely on the absence of information / tags you might fall on your nose because the data wasn't complete etc. For some stuff it might sense to use the "no" to avoid misinterpretations by wrong asumptions, e.g. shop=tobacco, sells:cigarettes=yes, sells:cigarette_tobacco=no or highway=motorway_link, oneway=no. also: sells:vegetables=only sells:cabbage=yes sells:carrots=yes ... etc. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
