Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?

2011-05-31 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2011/5/29 Borbus bor...@gmail.com: I think a much more useful application than those suggested already is to identify all of the bridges that cross over a way.  It's easy to find all of the ways that go under a way, but what use is that?  It's quite important for waterways in general to be

Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?

2011-05-29 Thread Borbus
I think a much more useful application than those suggested already is to identify all of the bridges that cross over a way. It's easy to find all of the ways that go under a way, but what use is that? It's quite important for waterways in general to be able to find every bridge that will be

[OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?

2011-05-28 Thread Dave F.
Hi This wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels talks about adding a relation to the way going under the bridge. This statement: allows both the way(s) crossing the structure /and/ those passing under it to be identified (river and most canals

Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?

2011-05-28 Thread Tobias Knerr
Dave F. wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels [...] This statement: allows both the way(s) crossing the structure /and/ those passing under it to be identified (river and most canals bridges only pass /over/ the waterway, and using only the Way tag

Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?

2011-05-28 Thread Lennard
On 28-5-2011 18:46, Tobias Knerr wrote: With a relation, these calculations would not be necessary. The people that come up with these types of relations seem to forget that spatial data is what OSM is all about. For instance, using the osm2pgsql schema: