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

[Maarten Deen]

Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deen<mdeen at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
>> underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
>> relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
>
> Agreed.
>
>> maxheight needs to be applied to the road it applies to. Not the structure
>> that is going over it. If you want to do that (which is not that uncommon,
>> water maps do it all the time), introduce another key.
>
> Ok. So it seems the question now is, how should maxheight be "applied"
> to roads passing under bridges? The only reasonable and maintainable
> approach, in my opinion, is to apply it to the section of road that is
> physically under the bridge. Any objections?

IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.

I recently came across this example where the way with the maxheight is a lot
longer than strictly necessary. For every day uses this does not really pose a
problem.
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25883025>

Regards,
Maarten