2009/9/21 Anthony <[email protected]>: > You clearly define "way" differently than I do, and differently than the > current definition. The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM > today.
However that doesn't reflect reality and we should just accept "that's just the way it is" because that's how things work now, shouldn't we tag reality no tag things because it fits in the DB? > At least you admit there *is* physical separation between *some* lanes. If 6 of them don't have any physical seperation. > I never claimed there are 2 bridges. There is one bridge, with multiple > ways. "bridge" does not equal "way". But there isn't multiple ways in reality, there is a single "way" or bridge with 4 lanes + any footway/cycleways. > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&ll=40.727889,-74.100804&spn=0.002041,0.003825&t=h&z=18 > is one bridge, with more than one way. You seem to be the only one claiming > this isn't true. Just because it's tagged with multiple ways doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. As most school teachers said to me as a kid "just because everyone is jumping off a cliff are you going to jump off too?" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
