That relation proposal looks useful. I had one awkward situation recently where a bike path and a road cross a freeway together. But half way over the bridge, the bike path crosses the road (that is, switches from the right side to the left, by making a right angled crossing). Since both bike path and road have "bridge=yes", it ends up rendering as though there is a bridge making the bike path cross over the road.
http://osm.org/go/uG4gBJxd4-- Steve On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stephen Hope <[email protected]> wrote: > Often, if a bridge is named, I think it should be rendered. In > Brisbane, for example, everybody knows the Storey Bridge. Hardly > anybody recognises the name of the road that crosses it (which is no > longer than the bridge plus ramps). If you were given directions in > cross the river on the Story bridge (not uncommon), most maps won't > help you find it. > > Stephen > > 2010/1/15 Craig Feuerherdt <[email protected]>: >> Totally missed the Proposed Features as mentioned by Roy. >> I went with the "bridge_name=..." option, the reasoning being that the road >> goes over the bridge & therefore labelling the way that crosses the bridge >> with the bridge name is topologically incorrect. >> If you name the road section with the bridge name then at large scales the >> name may be rendered (as a road name). Not interested in rendering the >> bridge name, its just about collecting & storing the information for some >> other purpose (such as asset management etc). >> Craig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
