[OSM-talk] Bridges

Ben Robbins ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 16 15:21:21 BST 2006


>Isn't this why we have the "bridge=yes/no" tag? So you have:

>highway=motorway
>bridge=yes

>And incidentally this makes the "footbridge" tag redundant, since you just 
>have:

>highway=footway
>bridge=yes

What happens if there is a footpath with a road type bridge on it. (Wich I 
no of plently).  that is different from heigway=footway, bridge=yes.  Using 
that method it would need to be Footbridge/Bridge=yes.

I think all these millions of different tags that are appearing can mostly 
be put under 3 tags.
an example would be just:

1) tracktype=grade2,
2) features on it.  So footway=bridge, and..
3), its acssess laws, so highway=footway

Another example would then be

1) highway=footway
2) footway=style

or

1) highway=byway
2) tracktype=grade1
3) byway=gate

This method would avoid having a new type of tag for every feature, but 
rather just have everyfeature fall under either one of these 3 catagories.   
If the footway is nothing more than a footway, then you wouldnt state the 
trackrype, and if the track was a road, then you wouldnt state the acsess 
laws, because all highways are publically excessable.

Obviously the 4th feature of anyroad is its setting, wich can be added with 
abbuters

I just feal there is no point going to the troubles of having a differnt tag 
for each feature, so highway=footway, then bridge=yes, or style=yes, or 
cowstandinginmyway=yes, or statues=yes.  Since only one of these things can 
ever be there at once, (no object can share the same phisicial space), So 
why not therefore just put them all under 1 tag.

Ben






More information about the talk mailing list