[Tagging] Bridges and layers

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Jul 28 19:06:17 BST 2010


2010/7/28 Simone Saviolo <simone.saviolo at gmail.com>:
> The relation's scope goes beyond parallel dual-carriage ways.

+1, and I don't see why we shouldn't have it. They will be less
complicated for following mappers than routes are for instance.

> Suppose
> there's a parking on top of the bridge, or any other type of building,
> amenity, service... You'd include it in the relation, thus indicating
> it's on the bridge. There's no way to do it without the realtion.


-1, you could do it as well with a polygon, thus it might be more
difficult to evaluate. If something it on the bridge, you will see it
(given that all objects are on the right layer), the polygon might get
difficult for objects that are hung under/from the bridge and
therefore could be either that or on the ground.

cheers,
Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list