On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to >> connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality disjunct > > objects connected with pylons and lifts are also disjunct. So what?
Don't dismiss that argument so casually. The current rule is that the way below the bridge should not share a node with the bridge itself. I could imagine adding an exception to that rule if it were hard to avoid a shared node. But in this case, it can very easily be avoided by mapping the bridge in the same manner two million other bridges have already been added: as a way. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
