On 30/10/2014, Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> And both tags are >> definitive, whereas "maxheight:signed=no" (or whatever) is just >> waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. > > No. The survey is done : "there is no legal height restriction under > this bridge". Of course, anyone is free to come back and add more tags > like the physical height or the material and 3d shape of the bridge, > etc. But the most interesting information for apps checking clearance > (e.g. for routing) is there => no legal restriction here.
Counter-no :p If there's a maxheight:signed tag but no maxheight tag, the survey isn't done. I agree with the definition of the plain "maxheight" key from the wiki : > In most cases this expresses a legal limit, though there are places where > this is used differently. Note that if it is desirable to establish a > difference between a legal and a physical maxheight, this should be the > lesser of the two. So "maxheight" technically isn't the legal limit, it's the smaller limit between maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal. In general if there's a legal limit it'll be the smaller one, but one could imagine a 4m limit on the road and a no legally-specified limit on a 3m bridge. If there's no legal limit, you should still add the "maxheight" tag. It's the tag that routers actually care about, it's important. Differenciating between maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal is a nuance that most people do not care about. Estimate the physical limit and leave a fixme if you've got no better source. If you want to tag the fact that there is no legal limit or no sign, use a different key than "maxheight" (maxheight:legal and maxheight:signed comme to mind). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
