On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John Smith<[email protected]> wrote: > How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a bridge, I would argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and not a legal one. > If maxheight already implies the legal height there is no need to make things > convulted for the sake of it, otherwise we'd be typing > denomination=the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter-day_saints The maxheight documentation does not make such an implication. > If the bridge has a horizontal bottom and the way underneath is flat most of > the time the legal and physical maximums will be about 15cm different, > breathing room if you like. > However if the above criteria isn't met the physical difference will vary, > say the way dips underneath it wouldn't be the same as the entry or exit from > under the obstruction. Or the previous example of one side the lane being > different to the other, this won't help trucks as they can't make themselves > the same size as unicyclists. What about a way that has either a physical limitation or a legal limitation (not both). Perhaps there is some argument that the tag should differentiate between these situations? Though I admit I can only think of a weak one - that it makes it clearer for users and mappers - e.g. seeing that a way has been tagged with maxheight:physical might implies that it relates to the crossing bridge, whereas if it was tagged with maxheight:legal, it would be worth my while to go out and check the clearance signage on the bridge... _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
