<html><head></head><body>There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich.<br>
Yves<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale <colin.smale@xs4all.nl> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> I.e they define this tag as subtype of <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge</a> [5]. I don't see any real <br /> application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not <br /> imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or <br /> adds any features to end users.<br /></blockquote><br />In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with <br />good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient <br />speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful <br />for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road.<br /><br /><a
href="https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP">https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP</a><br /><br />Some are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles <br />and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable <br />to cross the bridge.<br /><br />So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of <br />value for routing or end users...<br /><br />--colin<br /><br /><hr /><br />Tagging mailing list<br />Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.</body></html>