[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

Philip Barnes 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
> bridge?

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 mailing list