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

2009-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2009/10/24 Lesi : > - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine > the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as > operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? > mine=...? to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd no

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

2009-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2009/10/21 Tobias Knerr : > 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=di

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

2009-10-27 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 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,