Gervase Thanks for the tip - I like the idea of using a relation here. Non-rendering is a downer (yes - I know - don't tag for the renderers) but sounds like some Good Samaritans have it in hand. If fully and universally implemented, this solution - which I feel is technically the right one - would create a huge number of new relations (a lot of bridges in the world!) - is this a problem anywhere in the software chain?
Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv-gm...@gerv.net] > Sent: 28 August 2009 09:41 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock > > On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: > > On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding > how to tag a > > canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have > > name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= > and ref= > > tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better > > ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge > > and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and > reserving > > the name and ref tags for the highway segment. > > The correct solution here is to use relations. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ > and_Tunnels > > The relation should be as follows: > > type=bridge > across=<the road> > under=<the waterway> > ref=<bridge number> > > Optionally: > maxwidth= > maxheight= > name= > > However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been > working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. > > Gerv > > > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
