[Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel <bhousel at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with
> no hood, no booth, and no cover, so
> > adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error.
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?
>

I am not being deliberately obtuse.  Accidentally obtuse, perhaps.

What you wrote was this:

We'll replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes

I don't see the point of that if we're trying to lose covered=* on phone
booths.  I thought
moving to booth=* was to avoid having covered=* for phones.  If it has a
booth it's
covered so you don't need to tag it as covered.  So what am I missing?
 and add a booth=yes to any features that don't already have a booth tag.”

Obviously I parsed it wrong.  I parsed it as I split it above, two
sequential and independent
actions.  I wasn't expecting short-circuit evaluation of that particular
and expression.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180623/2ad64008/attachment.html>