Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Stefano Maffulli <
smaffu...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:17 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> no, this clearly isn’t a suitable key because the soft story property
>> from what you wrote above is about a structural
Hi Sergio,
Le lun. 17 déc. 2018 à 02:38, Sergio Manzi a écrit :
> Now, for the reasons for namespacing and just as an example (*it is not
> the only good reason...*), think about documentation: the documentation
> for describing a power switch should not be intermixed with the
> documentation de
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:25 AM François Lacombe
wrote:
>
> I still think that actuator=* is better than two pipeline:valve:actuator=*
> and railway:switch:actuator=* because the first is really more concise and
> reusable between valves and railway switches.
> Like I don't like fire_hydrant:posi
Hello Martin,
On 2018-12-17 11:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> yes, _*it is a structural detail*_ (insufficient stiffening/strutting, if I
> interpret it correctly), that's why it is _*not suitable as a value for
> building:structure*_, as that key is about the structural system, not about
> i
sent from a phone
> On 17. Dec 2018, at 13:34, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> I added emphasys to part of your quote to underline how I fail to understand
> how a "structural detail" cannot be construed as a sub-key of... structure.
you should rather have looked at the whole thread, I was replying
Bonjour François,
On 2018-12-17 11:50, François Lacombe wrote:
> I own no switches.
Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude in any way: I just assumed you were the one
who introduced the switch=* key for power lines (/and apparently I was wrong,
you just "expanded" the information about those...)/
> S
So, to be clear, you are ok with soft_storey being a *sub-key* of
building:structure (and hence building:structure:soft_storey=yes/no), but not
it being a *value* (building:structure=soft_storey)?
If this is the case... we perfectly agree! :-)
Cheers!
On 2018-12-17 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
Le lun. 17 déc. 2018 à 14:26, Sergio Manzi a écrit :
> Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude in any way: I just assumed you were the
> one who introduced the switch=* key for power lines (*and apparently I
> was wrong, you just "expanded" the information about those...)*
>
Me neither, switch=* was fi
Thanks, me too! :-)
If you are interested in this kind of things, have a look at the following
(/not an exaustive list of topics, just a random one.../):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_(URN
Am 17.12.2018 um 13:01 schrieb Paul Allen:
> ..
>
> This isn't theoretical speculation. The author of iD has, in the
> past, expressed unhappiness
> about such re-usability.
> ...
This is a specific to iD and not a general concern, and simply has to do
with that in a lot of cases iD doesn't actu
sent from a phone
> On 17. Dec 2018, at 14:36, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> So, to be clear, you are ok with soft_storey being a sub-key of
> building:structure (and hence building:structure:soft_storey=yes/no),
It is at least debatable, I know there are some people who love long structured
tag
11 matches
Mail list logo
