On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smith<delta_foxt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an > attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid. > As for using a node to indicate maxheight, this seems to me to be a very > clean way of dealing with it, since any routing software would only need one > obstacle to reject that section of way and find another path. Can you please explain exactly what you mean by "using a node to indicate maxheight"? This seems to be different from the posts which seemed to suggest tagging, e.g. sections of motorway between exits, etc. Like I said, my main argument for tagging the bridge is that it's unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain. If you have a consistent scheme for tagging the ways which pass under bridges, which is unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain, please share and document on the wiki :) Cheers, Roy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
