On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hope<slh...@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 bridge? I'm not at all convinced of that. But it is subjective, so we may have to agree to disagree. > It is the road under the bridge that has the limitation, > not the bridge. Divided roads often have different max heights on each > side, but it is one level bridge over the top. Good point, though I would suspect this is relatively rare (i.e. I've never seen this). > Max-height can be caused by overhanging trees, low wires, odd road > signs that stick out over the road, even buildings or roadside rocks > that bulge out over the road. Whatever the cause, it is the road > itself that is affected, and should be tagged. I disagree. We should be tagging "things", not tagging the "effect of things". > On a motorway, the max > height section can be several km long - the distance between exits, > and it is all covered by the same limitation, legally. On other roads > it may be only a few meters, and could be covered by a node tag. Sounds like a maintenance nightmare. I'm also not sure that a "clearance" under a bridge is equivalent to a "legal limitation" for the section of motorway between the exits before and after the bridge, as you say. And what if a motorway and bridge are tagged, but exits are missing, etc. Just sounds a lot harder to maintain than tagging the bridge itself. Can you explain what you mean by "may be only a few meters", and "could be covered by a node tag"? If you can specify an exact preferred way of tagging this (and document it on the wiki), I may well be convinced. Cheers, Roy _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au