On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > 2013/1/13 Paul Johnson <[email protected]>: >> Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other >> indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture >> of the bridge rather than the vague "type" which might get confused with >> "foot, cycleway, motorway" etc; and _ which isn't a good separator for what >> is effectively a subkey. > > > sorry for replying quite late to this thread. I agree with Paul, > tagging explicitly the structure in one subtag would be better, and > IMHO one subtag is not sufficient for classifying bridges. I'd like to > add a reference to another thread about the same topic one year ago: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-January/009162.html
In my original proposal, the way I'm using "bridge=" more or less corresponds to Martin's "bridge:type=", and my "bridge_type=" corresponds to your "bridge:structure=". Changing "bridge_type" to "bridge:structure" seems reasonable; is it necessary to create a separate "bridge:type" tag, and if so, what should be the values for the "bridge" tag? I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between "abandoned", "damaged", "removed", etc. as I don't have a well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is sufficiently complicated as it stands. It would make renderer support much simpler if the renderer only needed to parse "bridge=yes" and not worry about the "bridge:structure" and "bridge:type" tags unless it wanted to. I appreciate all the comments I've received thus far and will make changes to the wiki page soon to incorporate them. -- Chris Hoess _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
