On 15/08/2010, at 1:28 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: >> This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you >> should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already >> proposed bridge_name=*. > > I still think it should be just name=*, after all what's the point of > the road name being rendered when you expect the bridge name to be?
The big problem is that you can't tell what the name=* refers to, and what if the road and bridge name are both important? The unambiguous way to do it is to use a bridge relation - you put the name/ref on the relation, have the road, cycleway, footway on the bridge be a member with a 'across' roles, and the river or other road be a member with the 'under' role. Which also lets you say that the road and cycleway are part of the same bridge, not two separate ones. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
