On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smith<delta_foxt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as >> you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the >> way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is > The problem with this is that 2 ways sharing a node are physically connected > and this wouldn't be the case as one passes over the other.
Ah, of course. Problem. > Searching for a node near the bridge would be easier than searching for a way > since the node would be in close proximity to the bridge and you search by > lat/lon rather than random nodes. Um...the way would also be "close proximity to the bridge", because it passes under it... I don't see how finding a "node near a bridge" is a particularly elegant solution. And by random I mean the particular node you choose would be arbitrary and in an arbitrary position. And by arbitrary I mean without specific meaning. >> By the way, you can't place a node "under the bridge", unless it is >> indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?). > > You can use the maxwidth tag to indicate the maximum width and object must be > to pass a restriction on the way, like an underpass of a bridge :) I was referring to the width of the bridge. And sure, maxwidth exists but I would say that OSM ways are stored as lines. Mathematically, I'm saying a point cannot be "under" a line, unless it is on it. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk