[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

[Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:41:11 +0000 (GMT), John Smith
<delta_foxtrot at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> actually even though the definition in the wiki might not
>> specify it
>> unambigously and explicitly the current use of maxheight
> 
> These things should be explicitly stated, otherwise people interpret it
> differently :)
> 
>> (as discussed
>> intensively at least on German ML) should be
> 
> That doesn't help anyone else not on that list.
> 
>> maxheight:legal, so I
>> would encourage to put it the other way round:
>> maxheight
>> and
>> maxheight:physical
> 
> Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
> differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and
> duplication.
Either somebody make it clear how ALL usages of maxheight are to be used,
wether legal, physical, marine, or any other special interest usage, or I
will continue on my proposal. Without any clearification on the existing
tag, than it will be more confusing than adding new tags. I have atleast
stated in the definition of the tag how it is to be used.
-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail