[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
cahoess at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 15:58:10 GMT 2013
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/1/13 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
>> Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other
>> indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture
>> of the bridge rather than the vague "type" which might get confused with
>> "foot, cycleway, motorway" etc; and _ which isn't a good separator for what
>> is effectively a subkey.
> sorry for replying quite late to this thread. I agree with Paul,
> tagging explicitly the structure in one subtag would be better, and
> IMHO one subtag is not sufficient for classifying bridges. I'd like to
> add a reference to another thread about the same topic one year ago:
In my original proposal, the way I'm using "bridge=" more or less
corresponds to Martin's "bridge:type=", and my "bridge_type="
corresponds to your "bridge:structure=". Changing "bridge_type" to
"bridge:structure" seems reasonable; is it necessary to create a
separate "bridge:type" tag, and if so, what should be the values for
the "bridge" tag?
I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between
"abandoned", "damaged", "removed", etc. as I don't have a
well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is
sufficiently complicated as it stands. It would make renderer support
much simpler if the renderer only needed to parse "bridge=yes" and not
worry about the "bridge:structure" and "bridge:type" tags unless it
I appreciate all the comments I've received thus far and will make
changes to the wiki page soon to incorporate them.
More information about the Tagging