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

[Pieren]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Roy Wallace<waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cartinus<cartinus at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> For three reasons:
>>
>> 1) In the part of my e-mail you did not quote I just pointed out lots of
>> people don't read those definitions. The difference between the words
>> maxheight and maxheight:physical is not explicit enough.
>>
>> 2) Because the old definition of maxheight didn't explicitly state it was a
>> legal and not a physical limitation. Just changing the definition now doesn't
>> magically transform all the places where people already tagged a physical
>> maxheight with the maxheight tag into a maxheight:physical tag. At least not
>> until somebody invents a mindreading osm-bot.
>>
>> 3) The people who do not care/know about the difference are still going to tag
>> a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag.
>>
>> The endresult is that you will never know whether something tagged with just
>> maxheight is a physical and/or legal limitation.
>
> +1

No, no, no. maxheight until now was clearly the legal maxheight. It is
not explicitely writen on the wiki because you don't see the physical
height in many countries here in Europe but only the legal traffic
sign and the max height traffic sign is displayed on the Map Features
page since january 08.
I don't find any controversy about this interpretation in the archives
on this ML, so we can assume that maxheight was until now the legal
maxheight. We just need to clarify this point on the wiki and add a
new tag for the physical maxheight for countries where it is available
(call it maxheight:physical if you want)

Pieren