I believe there was a proposal for tagging a bridge separately: man_made=bridge. I think it would be really nice to have the actual outline of the bridge rendered Em 15/03/2014 10:02, "Peter Wendorff" <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de> escreveu:
> Hi, > > I agree partially with you here. > Yes, adding bridges in addition to the road is possible and may be a > good idea. > What we currently map as being a bridge in fact is the property of "the > road is on a bridge" instead. > Changing the current tagging scheme to "duplicate the corresponding > segment of the way and tag the bridge as a separate, but again linear > object" is worse in all but one point. > The only point this is better in is that a street with a continuous name > may not have to be splitted because of the bridge; but on the other hand > we do so for anything else, too: speed restrictions, footway or not, > highway type, surface and anything else; so it doesn't solve an issue > dedicated to bridges. > > On the other hand it doesn't solve the issue with multiple parallel ways > on the same bridge, e.g. considering a dual carriage way on one bridge > construction we currently map the property "road is on a bridge" again > on both parts of the dual carriage way independently, but it's > impossible to decide from the data (usually) if it's one bridge or two > bridges. > Your proposal to duplicate the way does not solve this issue either, as > you would still need two separate ways here. > > regards > Peter > > > Am 15.03.2014 13:25, schrieb André Pirard: > > Hi, > > > > I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. > > In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 > > under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. > > Or at level 0 if it's understood that the renderer knows what's a bridge. > > And the renderer knows, as it draws two thin stripes beside the road. > > So, a bridge can be a little way segment overlaying the road. > > This lets the routing software ignore the unnecessary complication of > > having to account for bridges as part of the route. > > This lets the bridge having its own attributes, unrelated to the road, > > for example a different name. > > This makes obsolete discussions wondering if the bridge must be split in > > two because the road changes in the middle. > > Etc. etc., all pieces clutch in very neatly. > > And BTW, this is similar to tunnel=culvert which is an optional feature > > of a bridge and that surprises no one at layer -1. > > And now, if we put bridges and culverts at -1, the rivers or streams are > > normally at -2. > > Tunnels (inside which the road runs) should be segments too, at level +1 > > or 0. > > > > I have tagged a number of streams and rivers at -2 -1 0 and I find it > > appreciable to have an instant view of where the complete main stream > > is, if not exaggeratedly long, as well as less prone to errors. > > > > Cheers, > > > > André. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
