Claudius - I think you may have answered the question I just asked - thanks - I must admit that I hadn't seen this proposal before. Once again, relations prove powerful!
Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Claudius [mailto:claudiu...@gmx.de] > Sent: 19 September 2009 14:12 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways? > > Am 19.09.2009 14:39, Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2009/9/19 d f<fac63te...@yahoo.com>: > >> Hi > >> > >> I have a bridge carrying a cycle lane, dual carriage way (with > >> central reservtion)& footpath. As far as I can see is > they each need > >> there own bridge& the result gets a bit crowded. > >> > >> Is there a way to simplify this? > >> If the bright was independent it could also mean that the ways > >> wouldn't need to be split! Saving a hell of a lot of work. > > > > There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours > it looks > > like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there > > are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, > etc.), but what > > do you intent by independant? Do you propose to connect all ways to > > one bridge? > > > > I would recommend a relation to unify "several bridges" in > one (which > > gets also the name). Not really more simple to map, but > resulting more > > accurate and probably could also render nicer. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > See this bridge/tunnel proposal for reference: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_ > and_Tunnels > > Claudius > > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
