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

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)<skippern at gimnechiske.org> wrote:
>> I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
>> room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
...
> If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do something
> about it and get that information on the maxheight documentation. I am not
> sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a process going, point
> me there, the current documentation on maxheight does not support the needs
> for me, so my solution was to make another tag. I havn't seen you do more
> about it than to attack my attempt to solve this.

Sorry if I've offended you, Aun - I didn't mean to attack your
attempt, and I admire your pro-activity in creating the clearance
proposal. I agree with you that the current documentation on maxheight
is insufficient.

I'm just using this list as I thought it was meant to be used - to get
some discussion going and see if we can reach some sort of a consensus
before going to the next step of wiki documentation.

So, I repeat my question: what do you and others think? Do you think
maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal is better or worse than
maxheight and clearance?