Hello, On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:11:34 +0000, "Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008 8:13 AM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As to way forward, I suggest there are 3 options: >> >> - Depreciate the viaduct tag entirely [*] >> >> - Use viaduct=yes >> >> - Complement the generic bridge=yes tag and develop a specialist >> bridge type tag for bridge devotees with precise >> architectural/engineering definition.
I think this is a very sensible way of moving forward, based on the replies so far. At the moment I use the bridge tag for viaducts, which looks ugly and is inaccurate. I'd suggest that viaduct=yes looks similar or identical to bridges on Mapnik, perhaps with a slightly lighter casing if it looks like a big dark blobby nightmare where there are a lot of them. > From what I think I understand, the railway lines out of Waterloo station > in London are pretty much going to be classed as going over a viaduct all the > way to Clapham Junction? These are raised manmade structures about the > height of a house, mostly with arches etc. Same for lines coming out of > London Bridge and most other London stations. In fact the district line > (railway=>subway) between Parsons Green and East Putney is also viaduct? That's my understanding too, London and other cities will be *full* of viaducts! Hence my concern, given that it's pretty handy to know how ways go over/under each other especially when you're walking around half-lost. Kind regards, Tom _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
