Talk:Key:no:*

no versus not

As far as I can tell, no:*=* and not:*=* are basically used as synonyms. I prefer not:*=* because it reads more grammatically or accurately than no:*=* in English and avoids confusion with the value no:

• not:building=school "This is not a school building," versus no:building=school "This is no school building!"
• not:name=Uno "This is not named Uno," versus no:name=Uno "This is no name Uno," versus noname=yes "This has no name."
• not:oneway=no "This is not oneway=no," versus no:oneway=no
• etc.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

1. There's already in difference. no:*=* could be used when the feature doesn't exist at all. not:*=* is used when it is something else, or a different tag. --- Kovposch (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kovposch: Interesting, that's a very subtle difference. I'm unsure which one I'd use in cases like 1013411876 1013411876 where it's a nondescript patch of pavement, difficult to tag positively, but definitely not a building. I wonder if there's even a need to distinguish between not:*=* on some primary feature tag versus no:*=* on the same feature tag. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kovposch: If this prefix is for indicating that there's nothing at all, can it be used even when it wouldn't be confused with anything, as in this intermittent motorway? What would you set no:highway=* to? yes or motorway? – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)