[OSM-talk] [talk-au] maxheight/height

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smith<delta_foxtrot at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
>> you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
>> way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is
> The problem with this is that 2 ways sharing a node are physically connected and this wouldn't be the case as one passes over the other.

Ah, of course. Problem.

> Searching for a node near the bridge would be easier than searching for a way since the node would be in close proximity to the bridge and you search by lat/lon rather than random nodes.

Um...the way would also be "close proximity to the bridge", because it
passes under it... I don't see how finding a "node near a bridge" is a
particularly elegant solution. And by random I mean the particular
node you choose would be arbitrary and in an arbitrary position. And
by arbitrary I mean without specific meaning.

>> By the way, you can't place a node "under the bridge", unless it is
>> indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
>
> You can use the maxwidth tag to indicate the maximum width and object must be to pass a restriction on the way, like an underpass of a bridge :)

I was referring to the width of the bridge. And sure, maxwidth exists
but I would say that OSM ways are stored as lines. Mathematically, I'm
saying a point cannot be "under" a line, unless it is on it.