On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 27/10/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com>: > >> The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which > >> can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no > >> sense. > > > > no, the maxheight tag maps the legal restriction (typically derived from a > > sign, in absence of a sign might be implied by other legal provisions). For > > physical restrictions use maxheight:physical (in some countries this is > > even signed). > > True; I was tempted to amend my sentence to note the physical/legal > nuance, but decided against it for the sake of clarity. In most cases, > physical and legal maxheight are pretty much the same. > > My main point was that what is signposted on the bridge is just a > "nice to have hint" from the mapper's point of view. What matters is > the actual legal/physical limitation.
At least here in Finland the maxheight restriction sign [1] is posted occassionally significantly before the bridge without pre-warning distance extra sign [2]. In such a case the maxheight restriction applies from the sign onwards legally, so it really matters here also from the mapper's POV what the sign says. What's even more funny, I even noticed one place where this difference might affect routing (although the effect is quite limited): http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1564470488#map=17/60.24009/24.95182 -- i. [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Finland_road_sign_342.svg [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Finland_road_sign_815.svg _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
