On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:59 +0000, John Sturdy wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle > > (obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional > > obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or more > > differentiated, it is probably important whether you go in canoe or > > with a big freight ship, this should be discussed with the marine > > mappers how it would be best done). > > Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made > clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on. In particular, a bridge > might be an obstacle to the way passing under it (if it's a low one, > or has a narrow arch) or to the way passing over it (by being narrow > from parapet to parapet). But this shouldn't be a problem if the > object tagged as "obstacle" is a way rather than a node. What would > be the best way to tag a low bridge carrying a canal over a river, for > example? (I'm pretty sure there are some examples of this.) Tag a > short section of the river as "obstacle", where it passes under the > bridge? >
The nornal way is to tag each way with the restriction placed on it. Where the way passes beneath a bridge, that way is usually tagged with maxheight, maybe maxwidth. An example is here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171499475 Some place a node with the same restriction under the bridge. I cannot think of an example of a bridge with a restriction on both ways, an overbridge is likely to use maxweight and/or maxwidth. Phil _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging