On 27/09/2010 17:10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/9/27 Lennard<l...@xs4all.nl>:
On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
What about abandoned=yes ?
And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever
bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just that:
not there anymore. It doesn't deserve a bridge=* tag.
exactly. As long as it is a bridge (abandoned or not), it is a bridge.
Otherwise it might be ruins or sth. similar, but not a bridge.
You could tag ruins=bridge for this.
I also have an example for this, where abandoned would probably be not
expressive enough:
http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6058662
That's clearly not a bridge & I wouldn't even bother tagging it.
Where as clearly this is even though no traffic passes over it:
http://www.publow-with-pensford-pc.gov.uk/pub/photogallery/images/album/village_05.gif
Cheers
Dave F.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
