[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

[marc marc]

Le 08.05.19 à 00:06, Tobias Knerr a écrit :
> We need a tag for the_type_  of the markings anyway
>  (as different patterns for marked crossings can have
> entirely different legal meanings in some jurisdictions), and we can use
> that same tag for presence/absence by also allowing yes/no values.

and we already have it : crossing_ref
and indeed i agree that adding yes/no to current value is a good idea.
the name of the key is not perfect, but it has the advantage of 
existing. changing all the keys and value at once seems unrealistic. it 
seems preferable to me to take out the type of marking of the crossing 
key in favour of the crossing_ref key, it is not a perfect change, but 
it was already a huge step forward. we discussed it on the talk-fr list 
last year, no one opposed the mecanical edit. on the contrary only one 
contributor would have wanted us to go further and change all at once.
to big to success.