On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Christopher Hoess <caho...@gmail.com> wrote: > conflict-prevention measure. Demoting "cantilever" into that key, for > instance, makes it impossible to express both "cantilever" and "truss" > simultaneously, which presents a problem. Now, I've realized that > "bridge=covered" is actually superfluous to "bridge=yes; covered=yes"; if > that goes away,
I might be mistaken, but I don't think this is quite true. A "covered bridge" is a very particular kind of historical structure. You wouldn't call a modern bridge where the footway happened to be sheltered from the elements a "covered bridge". Anyway. > Because it's almost always tagged on the lower, rather than the upper, way, > I'm inclined to drop "culvert" entirely barring a strong argument to keep > it. Yeah I thought so too, but if you look closer, the description here is very specifically of a type of bridge which is part culvert, part bridge. That is, a kind of brick structure which both has a tunnel for water to pass through, and directly supports the roadway. (Why we would want to specifically tag such a thing I'm less clear on...) Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
