Maarten Deen<md...@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 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... This is self evident - we map what is on the ground, and we apply the restriction to the section of the way for which the restriction applies. If a service road for a carpark has a restriction for the entire carpark, even if it is just caused by the danger associated with one or two low-hanging sprinklers, or a pipe, the restriction applies to the entire service road, and not just directly under the sprinklers. If a motorway has a restriction for a motorway section, because of a low bridge, the restriction applies to the section. A higher vehicle is not permitted on that motorway section. If a country lane has a low bridge, the restriction usually only applies to the road section under the bridge, a higher vehicle is usually unrestricted except when it passes the bridge. Applying a restriction to a way where there isn't a restriction, is clearly an error, and should be corrected by the next OSMer to pass that way. Ian. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk