You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case.
I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit proximity reference when the way is split. An explicit reference would need a relation. Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-27 11:13:
2014-10-27 10:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org <mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org>>: Another problem is that the tag is on the way under the bridge, and not the bridge way itself. this is how it should be, legal restrictions (but also physical ones and all properties in general)
> get always tagged on the object to which they apply. If you add a maxheight tag to a way over a > bridge (i.e. a highway with bridge=yes), it will mean that it applies to this way (e.g. because > the bridge structure imposes a height limit on the upper way).
cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
