2010/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > 2010/7/27 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com>: >> On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote: >>> >>> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making >>> use of the data? >> >> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in >> the first place? >> >> You cannot tell from our data model whether a bridge supports two ways or >> whether there are two parallel bridges, unless you, the tagger, says so (in >> a relation, on which there is no common agreement). > > Yes, I agree and think, we should come to a common agreement here. > THere is also the problem, that the bridge itself might (or mostly > has) have a name. It also covers an area, has middle supports or not, > is built in a certain construction type, etc. There is lots of details > we currently don't care for, but might do so in the future. I think > that there is definitely space for a bridge-relation to deal with all > these informations and bring them together. An alternative might be to > draw an (additional) polygon for the bridge area in projection (with > common nodes on the start and end) and tag it appropriately with name > and other details. > > I did this once in the past (but not to the full detail): > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42922473 > > Probably I'd prefer relations as they do not require geometry that is > hardly available if you don't have good enough aerial imagery. In the > case you do have the geometry you could attach it to the relation as > well.
+1 We've had a recent discussion on this matter on talk-it, and the bridge relation came up there too. I, for one, support the idea and hope to see the relation approved and used. > cheers, > Martin Regards, Simone _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
