[OSM-talk] Should Bridges be independent of their ways?

[John Smith]

2009/9/20 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:

> Yes they are.  If they weren't physically separated, people would be driving
> on top of each other.  If they weren't physically separated, they wouldn't
> be called multiple lanes - they'd be called one lane.

Pretty sure I left an "if" out, if the lanes are on top of the same
physical thing, in this case a bridge it's a single way, just the
lanes need tagging differently.

> The maxspeed of a way is the maximum speed you can legally travel on that
> way.  There's nothing inaccurate about tagging the way with the maximum
> speed you can legally travel on it.

That isn't accurate, the maximum speed varies by lane. Instead of
maxspeed, what about maxheight, if several lanes have different
maxheights it would be inaccurate and incorrect to mark either the
highest or lowest maxheight since you might fit if you get in the
right lane.

> Everything in the world is physically connected.  In this case, let's leave
> out the cycle lane and footpath and just consider a dual carriage way (with
> central reservation).  There are two roads and an island which go over one
> bridge.  One way, two, or three?

Is it one bridge or 2 bridges, if it's one bridge it's a single way
with multiple lanes.

> One way is unacceptable.  If that's your proposal, it is to rewrite all the
> editors and all the routing software, and then go through the database
> combining all the dual carriageways which many of us worked hard to split up
> in the first place.

You really need to read my comments instead of making assumptions,
dual carriage ways usually aren't phycially connected, not in the same
respect as a bridge.