[OSM-talk] Mapping canals

[Jo]

Michael Collinson wrote:
> 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.
>   
The problem with that approach is that all values need maxheight:metric 
values, the ones that already were metric included. The way I proposed 
it all values will end up being metric and where needed an extra value 
would be present with the imperial, klingon, etc units

Polyglot