[OSM-talk] Bridge Names

[Thomas Wood]

On 10/1/07, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I understand that the current advice for naming bridges is just to use
> > the name tag. Should there not be a 'Bridge Name' tag as many bridges do
> > not have the same name as the way they carry? The current method seems
> > not to allow, for example, both the name of the road and the name of the
> > bridge to be entered. I feel that this leaves some ambiguity as to what
> > the value for 'name' represents.
>
> Rather than having a road with bridge_name, tunnel_name, whatever_name
> (a similar situation occurs if you have a number of individual roads
> making up something named "western bypass" or so), I was hoping for an
> approach that would somehow use relations.
>
> For example, I could imagine creating a way for the bridge only, and
> another way for the road that crosses it, and then a relation saying
> "this road uses that bridge". This would give us the additional
> advantage of being able to model multiple ways going over the same
> bridge.

Is this not just causing ways to become what segments were supposed to once do?
I do see an advantage to this approach, essentially that 'segments'
are now essentially several nodes long, rather than 2.

> But this is just an idea and not yet properly thought out; renderers
> would have to be adapted to draw this correctly. There are numerous
> other possible ways of using relations in dealing with the situation.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)