<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>11 lip 2022, 10:07 od minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Somehow railroad crossings managed to escape the trap of shortsighted classification tagging. The rail regulators in my region classify level crossings on a linear scale. For example, the presence of flashing lights **of course** implies a bell, a saltire, and the requirement for the train to blow its horn. [5] But I see no problem in filling out a detailed form about crossing:saltire, crossing:bell, crossing:light, and crossing:horn. The extra checkboxes benefit regions where these fundamental laws of the universe do not hold. There can always be a preset for each common combination for mappers' convenience.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, and crossing tagging should be decoupled into such separate tags.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Otherwise it will never solve of problems that in different regions different<br></div><div dir="auto">things come in a different sets (zebra markings / traffic lights etc)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>