Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
The clearance under the bridge is, from the point of view of navigating, a property of the road under the bridge. You don't care when driving on the bridge - you can when going under it. That's where the "max clearance" signs are. I have never seen a sign on a bridge showing the clearance under it. (The point that a bridge could have height obstructions on it is also valid.) In fact the clearance is a joint property of the location of the underside of the bridge and the top of the road. Lowering the road a meter improves clearance, so saying this is just about the bridge makes no sense.
pgpHxew0sECwQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
