[talk-au] Bridges in the ACT
lists at sunsetutopia.com
Sat Aug 14 23:50:24 BST 2010
On 15/08/2010, at 1:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
> 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?
The big problem is that you can't tell what the name=* refers to, and what if the road and bridge name are both important?
The unambiguous way to do it is to use a bridge relation - you put the name/ref on the relation, have the road, cycleway, footway on the bridge be a member with a 'across' roles, and the river or other road be a member with the 'under' role. Which also lets you say that the road and cycleway are part of the same bridge, not two separate ones.
More information about the Talk-au