On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> 2009/9/21 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>:
> > Osmarender does a pretty good job of those bridges:
> >
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.95907&lon=-82.53907&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF
> > Notice how it combines the two ways heading south into one bridge even
> > without any additional information besides the fact that the two ways are
> > close together.
>
> there are many cases of parallel bridges though, where you don't want
> them to render as one because they are two (or more), so being close
> cannot be the criteria.
>

It can if you factor in the width of the ways.  If the distance between the
ways is equal to the average width of the ways (give or take half a meter),
you've got one bridge, not parallel bridges.

That wouldn't solve the problem if there's a gap between the ways but one
bridge, though.  I agree it's better to represent the bridge separately.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> > 2. if the bridge is independent, the size (width) can be drawn to suit
>
> What do you mean? If I don't know the width of the bridge, I can't draw it.
>

If you know the distance between the centers of the ways, you can calculate
the minimum width the bridge could possibly be: distance between the centers
of the ways times two.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Reply via email to