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

[Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:45:50 +1000, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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?
You can call it apples and oranges for me, but it have to be documented.
Either by improving the documentation on existing tags, or as I am doing
proposing a new tag. I do not know if clearance is the best word, or if
other words can describe it better. English isn't my first language, so any
linguistic makeup must be applied from some of you that know the language
better than me.
-- 
Brgds
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail