[Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 09:39:31 UTC 2015


On 18/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 17.02.2015 um 19:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>:
>> maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal)
>
> -1, maxfoo was always defined as a legal restriction so this function should
> go into your data evaluator but not be the rule for the data entering mapper

Allow me to disagree:

* maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently
is asking for trouble.
* The vast majority of consumers only care about min(physical,legal);
expecting them to know about and handle that particular quirk of the
osm schema (instead of simply taking the maxwidth value) is asking for
more trouble.
* There is currently a grand total of 22 maxwidth:physical tags in the
db (12500 maxwidth, 0 maxwidth:legal), and none of them have a
complementary plain "maxwidth" tag (one could argue that this is poor
tagging, like tagging name:en without name). So there's really no
backward compatibility to be worried about (and this whole thread is
dealing with a theoretical problem, not a practical one).
* I didn't do an exhaustive search, but even looking at maxheight I
didn't find any object where maxfoo isn't =< maxfoo:*.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/7J5



More information about the Tagging mailing list