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

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Tue Jul 28 12:22:41 BST 2009


Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hope<slhope at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
>> under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
>> the bridge.
>
> You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
> the bridge? I'm not at all convinced of that. But it is subjective, so
> we may have to agree to disagree.

The clearance under the bridge is, from the point of view of navigating,
a property of the road under the bridge.  You don't care when driving on
the bridge - you can when going under it.  That's where the "max
clearance" signs are.  I have never seen a sign on a bridge showing the
clearance under it.

(The point that a bridge could have height obstructions on it is also
valid.)

In fact the clearance is a joint property of the location of the
underside of the bridge and the top of the road.  Lowering the road a
meter improves clearance, so saying this is just about the bridge makes
no sense.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090728/212077b0/attachment.pgp>


More information about the talk mailing list