[talk-au] [OSM-talk] maxheight/height

[Liz]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smith<delta_foxtrot at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
> > attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
>
> Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
>
> > As for using a node to indicate maxheight, this seems to me to be a very
> > clean way of dealing with it, since any routing software would only need
> > one obstacle to reject that section of way and find another path.
>
> Can you please explain exactly what you mean by "using a node to
> indicate maxheight"? This seems to be different from the posts which
> seemed to suggest tagging, e.g. sections of motorway between exits,
> etc. Like I said, my main argument for tagging the bridge is that it's
> unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain.
>
> If you have a consistent scheme for tagging the ways which pass under
> bridges, which is unambiguous and easy to implement and maintain,
> please share and document on the wiki :)
>
> Cheers,
> Roy
>
I don't think that we have a consistent clear unambiguous easily_maintained 
and implemented system yet.
It certainly isn't up to "document on the wiki" standard.
But a few more posts from all comers and we could be close to 'clear' and 
'unambiguous'.