[Tagging] Using restriction and restriction:vehicle for the same restriction relation should be discouraged

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 00:23 2022-11-06, 
easbar.mail at posteo.net đã viết:
> Ok, sure, as far as I am concerned it doesn't have to be `unrestricted` 
> and could just as well be `none` or `no`.
> 
> But at least there seems to be consensus that
> a) The `except` tag could/should be replaced with such a 
> `no/none/unrestricted` value for the `restricted:` key

"Replaced" is too strong for now. I'd suggest pairing it with except=* 
until after a transition period, because the except=* key is already so 
entrenched among data consumers. The consequences of missing an 
exception are pretty severe. Dual tagging also mitigates the fact that 
this discussion has only involved a few of us. You never know what 
concerns will come out of the woodwork after the fact.

The length of the transition period is an open question. See the other 
thread about deprecating amenity=hospital in favor of healthcare=hospital...

> b) Using `restriction:` and `restriction` for the same relation should 
> be discouraged except for using `restriction:xyz=no/none/unrestricted`

This is an interesting way of putting it, that a key should have only 
one possible value, apart from conditionals. But I guess we already have 
some keys like that, such as noname=*.

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us