[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance

[John Smith]

--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a
> bridge, I would
> argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and
> not a legal
> one.

I assume it would be legal in many countries and would use it as such to recover money to fix bridges if you still proceed.

> The maxheight documentation does not make such an
> implication.

It's implied because you write down what's written on the sign, the sign being a legal tool to recover money from stupid people.

> worth my while to go out and check the clearance signage on
> the
> bridge...

Since you are on the talk-au list I can only assume you are in Australia in which case there is road regulations in Australia that relate to max height information posted and actual clearance and it's unlikely you will ever find conflicting information posted about the clearance.