Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deen<md...@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 maxheight is a >> lot >> longer than strictly necessary. For every day uses this does not really pose >> a >> problem. >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25883025> > > So the solution is "do whatever you want?" Hrmm... > > A couple of potential problems with this: What if someone later adds a > way that intersects the way with the restriction? The restriction must > then be removed from the part of the way that is beyond the bridge - > but this user should not be expected to know that the restriction even > exists... > > Also, for longer sections, it becomes less clear that the maxheight > restriction is in regard to the bridge (versus the law, power lines, > trees, buildings, or something else). For ways with multiple bridges > in close proximity, it may become unclear which bridge the restriction > applies to. etc etc... > > It gets a bit sloppy...
You are right. It is better to stay close around the limiting object. Regards, Maarten _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk