This is generally good. One comment: Christopher Hoess wrote: > [...] we might also consider whether "movable" > should be under "bridge" or "bridge:type". Placing it in the > former would mean patching current renderers (e.g., > Mapnik), but placing it in the latter makes specific movable > bridge types (e.g., bascule, swing) rather wordy to tag, with > three separate keys.
It makes more sense to replace: bridge=movable; bridge:movable=swing bridge=movable; bridge:movable=lift bridge=movable; bridge:movable=bascule bridge=movable; bridge:movable=drawbridge bridge=movable; bridge:movable=transporter with simply bridge=swing bridge=lift bridge=bascule bridge=drawbridge bridge=transporter This removes unnecessary duplication, is more memorable ("is it 'moveable' or 'movable'...?") and accords with current usage (e.g. 577 occurrences of bridge=swing). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bridges-redux-tp5760227p5760348.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging