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

[John Smith]

2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:

> So this is a single way?
> http://bikelaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pulaski-bridge-walkway.jpg?w=324&h=241
>
> That's nutty.

And abusing relations to do the same thing isn't?

> As long as you are free to change lanes, I disagree.  The maxheight of a way
> is the maximum height of the way.  Using a GPS doesn't permit you to ignore
> signs which say to stay out of the right lane.

You miss the point entirely, the GPS could indicate which lane you
need to be in if you program it with your current height.

> Now if there's routing information involved - if you can't switch lanes -
> then yes, this is important information.  But it's also the place for more
> than one way.

Ummm what are you talking about?

> Have you ever been on a bridge with a Jersey barrier?  Is that one bridge,
> or two?

Ever been on a bridge with dynamic lane changes depending on time of day?

> Maybe the last one.  Anything else, is "physically separated", but could
> easily be accomplished over a single bridge (one of them even *is* an
> example of a single bridge).

Do you even grasp the benefit of being able to tag lanes rather than ways?

Pretty much all the examples you posted are exactly why we need to be
able to tag lanes, thanks for proving my point for me.

You keep saying you can tag a way with the maximum maxspeed but that's
nonsense, that isn't being able to tag the real world accurately
that's tagging a subset of the real world.