On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: > > >I.e they define this tag as subtype of > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real > >application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply > >covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any > >features to end users. > > In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good > reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you > will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, > implying a lower speed on that part of the road. > > https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP > > Some are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or > a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross > the bridge. > > So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value > for routing or end users...
that is true, but shouldn't the routing sw be able to evaluate bridge:structure and bridge:movable as well? The intention was to add swinging rope bridges as a value of bridge:structure and those may be relevant for routing as well. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
