Oops - meant to send this to the list. On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, David Murn <da...@incanberra.com.au> wrote: > On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 20:27 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> That's why I specified a double-decker bridge: each deck gets split at the >> line. > > I guess in theory, having a double decker bridge, directly over a state > line is possible. It's not only possible, but exists: http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/george-washington-bridge.html
> But why write routers for the one case thats > theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only > possible, but already in existance? I don't care how the routers are written. I care about people wrecking the data by merging dupes. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
