On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smith<delta_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 restriction, ie you can't go under the > bridge unless you are under x metres.
There are two issues here: 1) what should be tagged and 2) what should it be tagged with. For 1), what should be tagged? Definitely the bridge. For two reasons: firstly, clearance under a bridge is an attribute of the bridge. Secondly, it is not possible to refer to "the section of the way that is under the bridge", because the bridge is a way with zero width. The only alternative is to tag "the entire length of any way that goes under the bridge" or "some arbitrary length of any way that goes under the bridge". I think these alternatives are undesirable at best - misleading and messy at worst. For example, it's kind of like tagging any house that's next to a park as "next_to_a_park=yes", rather than tagging the big grassy area as "leisure=park" (yes, this is an exaggeration, but the analogy is tagging the thing that is affected by something rather than tagging the something itself). For 2), what should it be tagged with? I concede that a bridge tagged with "height" could be misinterpreted (as the actual height of the bridge or bridge construction), as could "maxheight" (as referring to a restriction involved with traveling on top of the bridge). Therefore, I suggest a new tag, "clearance". A new tag should be created when the current tags do not describe things adequately, which I think is what has happened in this case. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au