[Tagging] Bridges and layers

Simone Saviolo simone.saviolo at gmail.com
Tue Jul 27 16:18:52 BST 2010

2010/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 2010/7/27 David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com>:
>> On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote:
>>> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making
>>> use of the data?
>> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in
>> the first place?
>> You cannot tell from our data model whether a bridge supports two ways or
>> whether there are two parallel bridges, unless you, the tagger, says so (in
>> a relation, on which there is no common agreement).
> Yes, I agree and think, we should come to a common agreement here.
> THere is also the problem, that the bridge itself might (or mostly
> has) have a name. It also covers an area, has middle supports or not,
> is built in a certain construction type, etc. There is lots of details
> we currently don't care for, but might do so in the future. I think
> that there is definitely space for a bridge-relation to deal with all
> these informations and bring them together. An alternative might be to
> draw an (additional) polygon for the bridge area in projection (with
> common nodes on the start and end) and tag it appropriately with name
> and other details.
> I did this once in the past (but not to the full detail):
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42922473
> Probably I'd prefer relations as they do not require geometry that is
> hardly available if you don't have good enough aerial imagery. In the
> case you do have the geometry you could attach it to the relation as
> well.

We've had a recent discussion on this matter on talk-it, and the
bridge relation came up there too. I, for one, support the idea and
hope to see the relation approved and used.

> cheers,
> Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list