[Talk-GB] Viaducts

[Andy Robinson]

John Smith wrote:
>Sent: 08 March 2007 4:15 AM
>To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-GB] Viaducts
>
>Is it just me, or does the concept of a railway viaduct seem completely
>flawed?
>
>A viaduct is, by definition, a long thing, so surely railway=viaduct ought
>to be attached to a way rather than to a node? By doing so, this precludes
>using railway=rail or railway=disused etc.
>
>Of course, a viaduct is really a special case of a bridge, so surely a
>solution that fixes these would be to amend the generic bridge tag to have
>a
>yes|no|viaduct valueset.

Yes, agreed. For bridges we are now using bridge=yes|true or a way so we
should do the same for viaducts and aqueducts. Whether they should be tagged
under these names or simply as a bridge depends on whether we need to have
them rendered differently.

Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
>
>This could make a viaduct way be tagged with railway=rail bridge=viaduct
>layer=1
>Or
>Railway=light_rail bridge=viaduct layer=1
>
>After all, I can't see any circumstance when a viaduct is also a "normal"
>bridge?
>
>I presume that the generic renderers will render a viaduct and a bridge in
>very similar ways, if not identically?
>
>What do people think?
>
>John
>User:roundel
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb