[OSM-talk] Mapping canals

[Michael Collinson]

At 03:34 PM 1/24/2008, Jo wrote:
>Dermot McNally wrote:
> > My favourite suggestion so far is that a second key be introduced -
> > either for the "original" measurement (my favourite, since it retains
> > the traditional meaning of the existing key) or for the normalised
> > equivalent.
> >
>This is what I was thinking all along. On the one hand you want the info
>as it is indicated in situ. On the other hand you want to be able to
>parse it efficiently. A second field seems like the most obvious
>solution. Maybe name spaced: maxheight:imperial = 3 ft.
>
>Polyglot

Or

maxheight= 3 ft  - original-easy-to enter "folksomomic" key (defaults 
either to metric or local usage, there are arguments for both)

maxheight:metric = 0.912  - added either by power users or by post-processing

That is the sort of conclusion I've been coming to with the is_in 
tag.  It is useful to have an easy to remember but fairly free-form 
tag to capture mass observations and then gain extra value from it by 
by post-processing and name-spacing for more systematic/rigorous 
catagorisation.

Mike
Stockholm