[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Mon Sep 27 17:30:19 BST 2010


  On 27/09/2010 17:10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/9/27 Lennard<ldp at xs4all.nl>:
>> On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
>>> What about abandoned=yes ?
>> And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever
>> bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just that:
>> not there anymore. It doesn't deserve a bridge=* tag.
>
> exactly. As long as it is a bridge (abandoned or not), it is a bridge.
> Otherwise it might be ruins or sth. similar, but not a bridge.
> You could tag ruins=bridge for this.
>
> I also have an example for this, where abandoned would probably be not
> expressive enough:
> http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6058662
That's clearly not a bridge & I wouldn't even bother tagging it.

Where as clearly this is even though no traffic passes over it:
http://www.publow-with-pensford-pc.gov.uk/pub/photogallery/images/album/village_05.gif

Cheers
Dave F.



More information about the Tagging mailing list