On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Michal Fabík <michal.fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31.10.2017 18:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> On 31. Oct 2017, at 16:31, Michal Fabík <michal.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map >>> _your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality >>> >> >> >> if there’s a sign “winter equipment required” it is bound to an object in >> reality. >> > > I'm not disputing that. I was commenting on Kevin Kenny's pointing out the > "don't map your local legislation" rule in response to your question > whether "we want to tag "winter equipment required" and this means > different things in different jurisdictions, or if we set up a series of > more atomic tags that spell out the implications of "winter equipment"." > > Bearing this rule in mind, it seems logical to only use > "winter_equipment_required=yes" or "winter_equipment_required=<time_range>" > (if the traffic signs specifies a time range), rather than tags for all the > implications of winter equipment. > Perhaps something like... access:conditional=no @ whenever access:winter_equipped=yes @ whenever
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
