[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boolean values

Konrad Skeri konrad at skeri.com
Sat Oct 3 20:42:52 BST 2009

Sorry, I apparently was not clear enough there. I've corrected it on
the wiki. I meant to decide what values to use when boolean values are
intended. The examples given were not intended as examples when only
boolean values are allowed. Instead of bridge=jomenvisst we should use
bridge=yes, and instead of electrified=naltaseotroligt we should use
electrified=yes. If we want to specify the type you are of course
welcome to do that, e.g. bridge=viaduct or electrified=contact_line.
But true/1/ja/da/japp/jej/Yes/YES/sant/recht/riktigt/korrekt/sschjo/...
should be replaced by yes.

And as I wrote twice on the wiki already from the start, and I quote:
"Care has to be taken so that keys expecting numerical values doesn't
receive boolean. We don't want e.g. layer=yes". In general I believe
that should mean that numerical values should not be touched by
automatic changes unless for keys known to not have a numerical value
(e.g. bridge).


>>> How precisely is that going to end the debate?
>>> a) Voting isn't the way to do this. It either needs consensus or a
>>> dictator.
>> It will probably demonstrate that there already *is* a consensus to use
>> "yes" for this.
> true. I agree that we could (IMHO should) agree on one way to tag
> "true" and that is already (by majority in tags/presets) "yes" (and
> accordingly 0/false should be "no"). But I doubt there is any key that
> is just true/false. The examples on the voting page all have different
> values as well, some (electrified) even in majority. Furthermore it
> won't be possible to change automatically all "1" to yes, as sometimes
> this might be the amount "one". There is a difference between
> disabled_spaces=yes and disabled_spaces=1 for instance.
> cheers,
> Martin

More information about the talk mailing list