On 18/02/2010 17:06, Molescott wrote: > When you come up either of the curved cycle access paths to the bridge, > the cycle lane/track/path/way is the first thing you come across on the > bridge. This part is actually a fairly wide pavement with a standard > kerb, from which you can step down into the road proper. The road itself > then has one lane going out over the bridge and then another lane coming > back. On the far side is the bridge parapet, no pavement. Some of the > distance along the bridge is joint bike/walker use, with nothing painted > on the pavement. Other bits have a centre white line on the pavement > with bike/walker symbols on. > I am confused as to how to tag this way since the bike part isn't in the > road marked out as a lane, but up on the pavement. > If I add a bridge to a separate bike tag I'll get two bridges over the > water, which there isn't. > I think maybe I'm looking at this too deeply and there's a simple answer. > Any suggestions please?
From what you describe, the cycleway is separate from the road, so should be mapped as a separate way, tagged as highway=cycleway, plus bridge=yes for the part that is on a bridge. Though as you say, the problem with this is the standard map renderings will show it as a separate bridge. This is a fairly common problem, and also happens with dual-carriageways etc going across bridges. Unfortunately I don't think there is a proper fix for this currently. There is a proposed bridge relation, which would let you group several ways together as part of a single bridge: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels Though AFAIK that's not used by any renderers. Hopefully this will be fixed sometime, and bridges drawn correctly. Craig _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
