[talk-au] Bridges in the ACT

[John Smith]

On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you
> should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already
> proposed bridge_name=*.

I still think it should be just name=*, after all what's the point of
the road name being rendered when you expect the bridge name to be?

If you want to do name/ref for the way this is when you need to think
about route relations, in which case you only need the bridge to be
tagged with ref=*