[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