[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle
phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Mon Oct 29 13:01:48 GMT 2012
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:59 +0000, John Sturdy wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is already a specification, to whom it is an obstacle
> > (obstacle:car, ...) maybe we could have an additional
> > obstacle:waterway for all waterbased transport (or more
> > differentiated, it is probably important whether you go in canoe or
> > with a big freight ship, this should be discussed with the marine
> > mappers how it would be best done).
> Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made
> clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on. In particular, a bridge
> might be an obstacle to the way passing under it (if it's a low one,
> or has a narrow arch) or to the way passing over it (by being narrow
> from parapet to parapet). But this shouldn't be a problem if the
> object tagged as "obstacle" is a way rather than a node. What would
> be the best way to tag a low bridge carrying a canal over a river, for
> example? (I'm pretty sure there are some examples of this.) Tag a
> short section of the river as "obstacle", where it passes under the
The nornal way is to tag each way with the restriction placed on it.
Where the way passes beneath a bridge, that way is usually tagged with
maxheight, maybe maxwidth. An example is here
Some place a node with the same restriction under the bridge.
I cannot think of an example of a bridge with a restriction on both
ways, an overbridge is likely to use maxweight and/or maxwidth.
More information about the Tagging