On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 13:31, Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess that what we have is another case of two (in reality three) > tagging practices for (nearly) the same thing. > Yep. My increasingly-fallible memory may be letting me down here, but I have a vague recollection of bridge:name being introduced because some people were unhappy with using name for the name of the bridge. They argued that name should be the name of the road and bridge:name should be used for the name of the bridge. Which did nothing to change all the existing bridges mapped the old way, and didn't get incorporated in carto immediately (has it been, yet?) so the old way was still used. In some cases, both names have been used (presumably to get the name to render). name=* for a tunnel's name that is mapped with tunnel=yes seems to be > common practice (at least 760 motorway tunnels in Italy are tagged this > way). > This part of the UK has a LOT of named bridges. Since they are more picturesque than tunnels, they often get mentioned in tourist guides, walking guides, etc. A lot of photos of them on geograph and wikimedia. So they tend to get mapped, one way or another. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
