--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that is under as in closer to the centre of the
earth, but
not under as in if you look up you see the bottom of the
bridge.
You are thinking of lines, but this isn't how data is stored or processed with
OSM, everything is
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this
is how to
define that section of way, so as not to introduce a
maintenance
You really don't want to pull on that thread, the same can be said for bridges
or virtually
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this
is how to
define that section of way, so as not to introduce a
maintenance
You really don't want
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
For maxspeed (your example), the restriction should be
applied to the
Exactly, you may have to break a way up to apply maxspeed tags to several
different parts of what was originally a single way. Exactly the same as a
bridge,
On 28/07/2009, at 10:31 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is the road under the bridge that has the limitation,
not the bridge. Divided roads often have different max heights on
each
side, but it is one level bridge over the
On 28/07/2009, at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:34:00 +1000
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
A clearance tag could just as easily be misinterpreted as the
maxheight tag.
I don't see how. bridge=yes; clearance=2.8...
Does this mean the bridge has a
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging
the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is
better.
By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the
other hand maxheight is specific to the road under
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
I think the bridge should be tagged.
Firstly,
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged as
maxheight on the way that has the restriction, ie you can't go under the bridge
unless you are under x metres.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has the
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge. It is the road under the bridge that has the limitation,
not the bridge. Divided roads often have different max heights on each
side, but it is one
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag from the
nearest junction if available or the sign.
A clearance tag could just as
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:34:00 +1000
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
A clearance tag could just as easily be misinterpreted as the maxheight tag.
I don't see how. bridge=yes; clearance=2.8...
Roy
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way,
this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways
that pass under it.
Here I cannot agree
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
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
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
--- 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
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems from our
different
perspectives - your emphasis on when I travel vs my
emphasis on,
perhaps, when I look at a map, or when I conceptualise
the world.
That was the basis of the 2 sets
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to
a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge
(way) and the
way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is
The problem with this is
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
___
Talk-au mailing list
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:24:35 +1000
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes,
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest splitting the way under the bridge and tagging that section
of way with the max_height tag. This is consistent as it is a restriction
for that section of way
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...the way would also be close proximity to the bridge,
because it
passes under it... I don't see how finding a node near a
bridge is a
particularly elegant solution. And by random I mean the
particular
node you choose would
32 matches
Mail list logo
