Liz wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way,
this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways
that pass under it.
Here I cannot agree
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Williams
mark@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Therefore maxheight is a property of the way going under the bridge,
possibly 1 way if the road is fragmented in OSM, and ought to be on the
whole road from where the sign is until after the bridge.
Yup, that
On 07/28/2009 11:45 AM, Christoph Böhme wrote:
According to Wikipedia clearance [1] is the free space between a
vehicle and the structure (i.e. bridge) it is passing through. The
maximum height (and width) of the vehicle is -- at least for railways --
called loading gauge [2] while the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight needs to be applied to
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...the way would also be close proximity to the bridge,
because it
passes under it... I don't see how finding a node near a
bridge is a
particularly elegant solution. And by random I mean the
particular
node you choose would
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this
is how to
define that section of way, so as not to introduce a
maintenance
You really don't want to pull on that thread, the same can be said for bridges
or virtually
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where the way with the
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where
Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I recently came across this example where the way with the
maxheight is a lot
longer than strictly necessary. For every day uses this does not
really pose a problem.
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of potential problems with this: What
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:11:21AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
There are two issues here: 1) what should be tagged and 2) what should
it be tagged with.
For 1), what should be tagged? Definitely the bridge. For two reasons:
firstly, clearance under a bridge is an attribute of the bridge.
What
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:11:21 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:01:45AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
What of bridges that cross multiple ways of different heights?
Sorry. I see that this has been commented on elsewhere in the thread.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
2)
Not only bridges have maxheight but also parking-lots,
tunnels, ...
and trees even if they aren't explicitly signed.
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
For maxspeed (your example), the restriction should be
applied to the
Exactly, you may have to break a way up to apply maxspeed tags to several
different parts of what was originally a single way. Exactly the same as a
bridge,
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:07:56AM +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
The way below the bridge does not intersect the bridge at all.
There is no reference from the street below to indicate that there
is a bridge at all. You would have to analyse the location and
vector of all other
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the
2009/7/28 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
To return to the bridge
the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to
be considered
a) Height of bridge
height tag on bridge way
b) Height above sea level of the bridge
ele tag on bridge way
c) Max height of the arch of the
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com schrieb:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com
wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under
the bridge has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the
bridge has a limit of 2.8 ie vehicles
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the
Liz schrieb:
To return to the bridge
the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to
be considered
Height of bridge
Height above sea level of the bridge
Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway
Max height of a vehicle which can drive under the
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:34:00 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
Liz schrieb:
To return to the bridge
the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all
need to be considered
Height of bridge
Height above sea level of the bridge
Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway
Funnily enough, where I have been mapping the sign is always on the
bridge itself. Anyway, I think we should be tagging what the sign is
referring to, independent of the sign itself.
even if the sign is on the bridge structure it is a limitation valid
for the road passing under the bridge.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations.
This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under
a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed
against
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way,
this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways
that pass under it.
Here I cannot agree
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are
probably valid.
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need
or should have 2 tags to indicate the same thing in 2 different ways.
Can
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems from our
different
perspectives - your emphasis on when I travel vs my
emphasis on,
perhaps, when I look at a map, or when I conceptualise
the world.
That was the basis of the 2 sets
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to
a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge
(way) and the
way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is
The problem with this is
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
___
talk mailing list
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes,
Liz edodd at billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
That is not going to work. There is
43 matches
Mail list logo
