On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 09.03.2014 13:21, Richard Z. wrote: > > the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two > > bridges > > or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition > > because it > > connects "ground" with layer=0 with something else at a different level. > > How do you want to model such cases better? Lifts in buildings? > > Typical pylons aren't a problem because the "ground" is not an OSM > element that they could share a node with. Pylons shared between more > than one bridge are indeed an interesting problem for 3D mapping, but > I'm not aware that this is commonly mapped or used by applications yet, > so there is still some room for establishing good standard practice. > > Lifts in buildings don't use layer, they use level. That tag follows > different rules than layer.
I would be in favor of using level more widely but the rules are not so much different because you can also have all kinds of highways and railways on levels. > > In practice this rule is broken more often than you would think: Hamburg is > > full > > of waterways connected with roads on bridges through a tag obstacle. France > > is > > full of bridges sharing a node with the waterway bellow. > > I would prefer correcting these errors instead of changing the rule they > break. are those really errors? Pylons must share a node with the waterway bellow in my opinion. They are a pretty relevant part of it. > > It may be worth to tag have such a rule restricted for "ways of the same > > type" > > and a short well defined list of exceptions. > > The rule is also needed for ways of different types, e.g. for ordering a > stack of road, railway, and waterway bridges. then there is the alternative of having a list of exceptions. Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
