On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ross Scanlon<i...@4x4falcon.com> wrote: > Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would suggest splitting the way under the bridge and tagging that section > of way with the max_height tag. This is consistent as it is a restriction > for that section of way (assuming there are no intersections along the way.
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this is how to define "that section of way", so as not to introduce a maintenance nightmare. My suggestion would be that the section of way should correspond to the section that is indeed physically *under* the bridge (on the order of 10m-20m long, usually). >> 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?). > > Actually you can. Place the node on the way under the bridge, then drag it > so that it is where the bridge crosses the way but do not join it to the > bridge. Hmm, I suspect this may be tricky to edit, if you have two nodes nearly on top of each other, near where the ways cross. Sounds messy to me. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
