[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 21:03:40 GMT 2009

2009/10/21 Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>:
> Dave F.:
>>> However, I believe that using a common key instead of
>>> disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using
>>> different *values* would have been the better alternative.
>> Common Key? Can you give an example?
>> If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get around the problem
>> of ignoring all other keys.
> Yes, I mean status=*, and I'm aware that it doesn't avoid the problem -
> however, the problem would have to be solved only once for all possible
> status values. A check for status will filter out objects with e.g.
> status=planned, too, even if only construction, disused and abandoned
> were known when status was introduced.

This wouldn't be helpful either, as status could be as well "running",
"working", "in use" or whatever. Why would I want to filter these out?
IMHO you can only use information that you do understand, other you
will have to ignore.


More information about the talk mailing list