[Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

Martin Vonwald (imagic) imagic.osm at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 06:22:31 GMT 2013

Am 01.02.2013 um 00:01 schrieb Michael Kugelmann <MichaelK_OSM at gmx.de>:

> On 31.01.2013 12:06, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>> I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that
>> contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation
> -1
> The current  method is used and well established since years and for my point of view works fine. So I clearly dislike to change it.

What current method do you refer to? The key bridge or the proposed relation?
When reading through the responses in this thread I get the impression that there is need for a simple way to specify what OSM-ways belong to one, single bridge. 
Regarding the relation: there was a short discussion about a waterpark short time ago. It was asked if all the features should go into a site relation. The answer was (as I remember it): no. Only if the features are spread over different places. We have a spatial database so if all features are within a closed way there is no need for a relation. Why is there a different reasoning for a bridge?


More information about the Tagging mailing list