2013/7/2 Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > > There are actually several approaches suggested on the Bridge wiki on how > to tag bridge names[1]. The above cases represent the first approach: using > the name tag. This may not be appropriate everywhere, however: if the road > running across the bridge has a street name, wouldn't it be more > appropriate to reserve the name= tag for the street name and put the bridge > name in a name_1 or bridge:name tag? (The wiki suggests this in approach > #2. There is also an approach using bridge / tunnel relations. I am not a > big fan of that one myself). > > Disadvantage of using a separate tag for bridge names is that they won't > get rendered on the default map, as far as I know. (Though that can be > changed.) The advantage is that the road itself maintains consistent > naming, in concordance with what I feel is the proper use of the name tag - > namely to reflect the official (signposted) name of the street. >
IMHO we mostly don't map bridges yet, they are only implicit as an attribute for a road (or railway) that runs over a bridge (bridge=yes on the highway). In this mapping, it seems logical to use name for the name of the road (highway) and bridge:name for the name of the bridge that it is on. As soon as you map a bridge object (e.g. with a bridge relation or with a (closed?) bridge way) you would use its name tag for the bridge name. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
