On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
We should strive for least specific tagging restrictions necessary to > describe what we want. > pet=no (generally no animals allowed) > dog=yes (but dogs are) > bird=yes (birds as well) > parrot=no (but parrots not) > etc. > > For allowances it is more difficult (as the alligator example shows, > pet=yes would likely be too permissive). > I think we should start from an implicit pet=no. Simply because pet=yes includes my pet elephant, your pet boa constrictor and his pet lion and so we're usually going to have pet=no with an exception list. So we might as well say that pet=no is implicitly assumed if an exception list is present. Or pet=no is the default unless explicitly over-ridden by either pet=yes or an exception list. And if it's the default assumption if there is no exception list or pet=yes then there no reason to tag it explicitly (you can if you want, but it's not necessary). I also think pet=yes ought not be used and we need something like pet=check_with_operator, except that is ugly. I can't think of a better value, though. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
