2013/2/1 fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com>: > straighten our definition of building=*. Same is also true for bridge and > tunnel > as for a tunnel you need a certain length to call it tunnel (think it is 80m),
This is a misconception, there are actually no international (unified) standards for this, it depends on the country (or locally valid standards) and the 80 meter limit (in Germany) is not a general minimum limit for tunnels but is an exception for tunnels not drilled into the ground but created by excavating from above and covering succesively (the latter are also considered tunnels by the German DIN 1076 if longer than 80 meters). > Think we are missing some points though: > In my opinion the major problem is that without the relations > (type=bridge/tunnel) we do not have any connection between a way crossing > under > a bridge/above a tunnel. Especially for waterways this might be really useful > information not only for boot traffic but also in case of high water and > flood. I wouldn't add the ways below into a bridge relation, astonished that this is proposed. The relevant information for boat traffic below the bridge is the clearance (that depends other than on the bridge also on the water level) and should be tagged on the way it applies to (the part of the waterway below the bridge). The relation between the crossing way below and above is given by the geometry (and layer tags). > I know bridges with one name but several parallel independent structures. yes, clearly the common name shouldn't be the only criterium cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
