Hello, As a sailor I like to know if a bridge is a moveable one, and I think this is also interesting for cars, because they might need to wait. So I agree that bridge=true is not enough, I would like to be able to have a bridge=moveable. It is also possible to add the type of bridge (lift, swing, bascule, ... - wikipedia has some beautiful animations of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveable_bridge). So I think a viaduct=yes or a viaduct=<type> would be a good idea. At least the current way viaduct is used doesn't seem to be a good one. And I think a viaduct and a bridge are quite different things, so it's no problem to give them their own tag.
Steven Dave Stubbs schreef: > > That's usually the plan I think. The main problem we have with putting > this into practice, is that to maintain an optimal number of tags we > need to know the entire tagging domain before we start... which we > don't. So taking your example, if instead of bridge=yes we allow > bridge=suspension, we don't actually have a problem (assuming > everybody agrees to assume the existence of the bridge tag implies a > bridge regardless of the value, maybe excluding "no"). But if we had > started with transit=bridge/tunnel/ferry, then we'd still need the > bridge tag anyway because it's probably not sensible to add the > transit=suspension_bridge etc, simply for the ease of processing. > Ofcourse you could argue we need the transit tag, and just don't have it. > > I think for many of these things where we have x=yes/no, we find that > there is often a number of subtypes that could be substituted for the > "yes". Although most people probably wouldn't know how to classify > them, and just want to record the main type. > > Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
