[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 14:22:04 GMT 2012
2012/10/29 John Sturdy <jcg.sturdy at gmail.com>:
> Where an obstacle is at the crossing of two ways, it should be made
> clear which of the ways it is an obstacle on.
it is clear: it will be tagged on the way it refers to. If two ways
have a node in common, you shouldn't tag the obstacle applying only to
one way on this crossing node but be more precise. If you tagged the
node in common it would apply to both ways.
> 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
+1, that's how it would be done. Basically there is no particular
problem with this tag here, it is just the same as other barrier-tags
or maxheight for instance.
More information about the Tagging