--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are
> probably valid.
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need
or should have 2 tags to indicate the same thing in 2 different ways.
> Can you please explain exactly what you mean by "using a
> node to
> indicate maxheight"? This seems to be different from the
Someone posted about this earlier, have a node on the way effected, near or
under the bridge, rather than splitting the way and then tagging that node as
maxheight or clearence might be the better option that making a new section of
way. However maxheight is currently only applicable to ways not nodes.
> posts which
> seemed to suggest tagging, e.g. sections of motorway
> between exits,
> etc. Like I said, my main argument for tagging the bridge
> is that it's
> unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain.
It's not hard or ambiguous, it just means splitting a way under the bridge
similar to splitting a bridge.
> If you have a consistent scheme for tagging the ways which
> pass under
> bridges, which is unambiguous and easy to implement and
> maintain,
> please share and document on the wiki :)
It's a little more complicated then that, at present there was agreement on
maxheight as a restriction tag and that is perfectly valid as far as I'm
concerned.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
