I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an attribute
of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
The maxheight tag looks like it was aimed as a restriction tag, the way below
the bridge is restricted if you are above or close to X metres you will need to
travel another path.
I think adding a clearance tag will only serve to confuse things even further
and I don't think we need to be redundant here.
Also I've seen different sides of a bridge signed as different clearances when
bridges slope and one side is lower than the other side.
As for using a node to indicate maxheight, this seems to me to be a very clean
way of dealing with it, since any routing software would only need one obstacle
to reject that section of way and find another path.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
