Am 27.10.2014 um 13:11 schrieb Richard Welty: > On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd >> propose >> to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. >> >> I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes >> no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implicit >> proximity reference when the way is split. An explicit reference would >> need a relation. > since the height restriction only applies to the segment of road directly > underneath the structure, i have always been careful to split the way > on either side, fairly close to the structure before adding the tag. > > it seems like the only sensible way to do this.
If a legal maxheight tag only affects a tiny section underneath a structure, an alternative might be to add a dedicated maxheight node to the road in question like in case of [1]. For the purpose of identifying missing maxheight tags, I will also check for maxheight nodes in close proximity to a bridge (see analysis [2]). If you look at A428 'Crick Road' with its two railway bridges you can spot the difference: the missing maxheight tag is highlighted for the railway bridge without a maxheight node underneath. I implemented this 'node' option after some mappers complained about the overhead of splitting up a road just for the sake of adding a maxheight=default or maxheight=none tag. Of course, the situation is different, if a larger section of a road has an explicit legal maxheight limit. Splitting up the road in that case seems unavoidable. BTW: Please disregard the relation on node 1686139306, I don't use it for my analysis. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1686139306 [2] http://tinyurl.com/mu9oqrg _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
