Hi John, yes, that's one possibility; knew that already, but thanks for pointing the list to the link.
regards Peter Am 15.03.2014 14:16, schrieb John Packer: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
