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 Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:22:54 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my car
with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but physical clearance is
much
higher,than you would pass at the speed limit, but
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:25:34 +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:22:54 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my
car
with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:27:52 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I am not using maxheight in any of the metrics
that involve a travel-time to optimize for so
it has no effect on the route other then allowing
or disallowing that path at all.
Thus at least for me
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
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, 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 28/07/2009, at 11:28 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com
wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight
limtations.
And, by the way, on the other hand: one way can pass under multiple
bridges with
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging
the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is
better.
By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the
other hand maxheight is specific to the road under
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil,
there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical
height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the
wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is
needed
-
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil,
there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical
height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the
I am tagging both as maxheight.
It is a restriction that you are not capable or allowed
to pass a given node or a given way in any direction
with a vehicle of greater height.
That is also how I am evaluating maxheight and maxwidth
in Traveling Salesman.
Marcus
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:31:49
On 27/07/2009 09:57, John Smith wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the
other
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
height on the bridge instead of the way under it would IMHO indicate
the height
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, John Smith wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
the Key:maxheight says it clearly
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to
which the tag is
added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be
in metres.
You get to break up the way and mark it as maxheight
I'm just trying to make other people's
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to
which the tag is
added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be
in metres.
You get to break up the way and mark it as
And the bridge in question is a rail bridge with over head wires, the height
bit is clearance under the bridge.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
but be careful not to break things up. Maxheight could be
valid for
the way on the bridge itself as well.
Yup, the height is someone's attempt to do maxheight, not mapping the clearance
or height of the bridge...
In
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to
which the tag is
added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be
in metres.
You get to
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, sergio
sevillanosergiosevillano.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
there is no need to break anything
height and maxheight can also be just nodes.
i think the wiki definition is quite clear for all.
so for me:
- maxheight on the bridge
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:44:44 +0200, Peter Dörrie
peter.doer...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as
brazil,
there is a difference on legal height
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my car
with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but physical clearance is much
higher,than you would pass at the speed limit, but if both maxheight and
physical clearance is 3m, than I would need to slow down to almost crawl
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.
The maxheight tag looks like it was aimed as a restriction tag, the way below
the bridge is restricted if you are above or close to X metres you will
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
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:
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, 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
