Gervase Markham wrote: > Both of these things can be true of normal bridges, and there are > various tags and additional icons which can be used in those cases. My > question is: why does a viaduct need a different rendering *just because > it's a viaduct*? I've not seen generalist maps which differentiate.
Ordnance Survey 1:50k maps differentiate. A bridge looks like this: ][ ...stretched a bit if it's a long bridge. A viaduct looks like this: ][ ][ ][ ][ i.e. several "piers" are actually marked on, though only as illustration, not at the real location of the piers, which would be unreadable at 1:50k. (In fact, the piers are joined together in a pointy fashion not very well suited to ASCII illustration.) I don't really have an opinion on bridge vs viaduct tagging, nor the difference between one or the other: I post merely for enlightenment. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
