[talk-au] maxheight/height

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

The problem with this is that 2 ways sharing a node are physically connected and this wouldn't be the case as one passes over the other.

> 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.

Searching for a node near the bridge would be easier than searching for a way since the node would be in close proximity to the bridge and you search by lat/lon rather than random nodes.

> 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?).

You can use the maxwidth tag to indicate the maximum width and object must be to pass a restriction on the way, like an underpass of a bridge :)