Hi Gerv, On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 09:35:42AM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote: > Gervase Markham wrote: > > Currently, we have "waterway=aqueduct" on nodes only. It seems to me to > > make much more sense to treat aqueducts like bridges, with which they > > are closely analogous. So we should replace it with "aqueduct=yes", > > applicable to nodes or ways. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Aqueduct > > The (limited) consensus on this page seems to be that we should abandon > aqueduct= and viaduct= and just use bridge= for everything. > > While it seems to me that this isn't current consensus or practice, it > isn't necessarily nuts; I've already proposed bridge_type, and someone > has said that it's easier to have alternative values for bridge, so > instead of bridge=yes, we have bridge=motorised_swing, etc. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge_Type > > So why not bridge=viaduct, bridge=aqueduct?
You might want to look at the discussion a few weeks ago: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-January/022583.html Personally, I share your view about the bridge= tag, having a basic dislike for boolean values unless absolutely necessary. Someone suggested structure= - I quite like that (it also solves the "viaduct isn't a bridge" argument from Andy ;-) ). Cheers, -- Matthew _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk