waldo000000 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 06:24:35 BST 2009
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smith<delta_foxtrot at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
bridge (as an "attribute" or a "restriction"). I'm not suggesting we
need 2 different tags. I'm quite happy to tag it as a "restriction",
if we can agree on how it should be implemented.
> have a node on the way effected, near or under the bridge, rather than splitting the way and then tagging that node as maxheight or clearence might be the better option that making a new section of way. However maxheight is currently only applicable to ways not nodes.
> ... It's not hard or ambiguous, it just means splitting a way under the bridge similar to splitting a bridge.
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is
specifically referring to the bridge clearance. Also, if someone is
checking, for example, whether maxheight is specified for a particular
bridge/way, they don't have to go searching for some random node
"near" the bridge.
By the way, you can't place a node "under the bridge", unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
More information about the Talk-au