2008/8/20 Dirk Stöcker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is this different in your area?
In a word, "yes" :) Map Features doesn't suggest this tagging scheme, and, while I can see why people might do it, it makes little sense based on my local mapping practice (caveat: I'm the first person to have mapped rivers in Ireland, so I set the precedent). To me, rivers aren't below roads, roads are above the streets. I reserve a layer attribute for an actual crossing - that is, the bridge gains a layer attribute and is conceptually rising above the road around it, which has none. You can argue that only hump-back bridges are well-modelled by this method, but remember that we're trying to capture the ordering of the layering of overlapping elements here, not actual elevations (or we'd need a lot more layers than we have). It's probably appropriate that we hear from others on this, but if there's sufficient consensus that waterways should be deemed to have a layer, we should try to get acceptance of the principle that they should carry an implicit one of -1 _or_ that Map Features should promote the "German Way". But IMHO that's getting us into a world of tag-spam. If all waterways require it, it shouldn't require an explicit tag to say so. Dermot -- -------------------------------------- Iren sind menschlich _______________________________________________ josm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
