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

[John Smith]

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

> Irrelevant.  I never said you had to use relations.  In fact, I said you
> don't.

Others have suggested otherwise, to "group" ways that are on the same
physical bridge.

> I wouldn't call the use of relations "nutty", though.

I was referring to a specific use case.

> Fine.  You can add "maximum height" along with "maximum speed" to your list
> of lane-specific data.
>
> I don't find it very important, but if you want to allow for this, without
> messing up anyone else, feel free.

I don't find people tagging botanical names on plants useful either,
but they're doing it because they feel it is important.

At present I am not easily able to tag individual lanes, but would
love to be able to do it.

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

At present how exactly would you tag it?

> So you think those examples should all be represented as a single way?
>
> That's horrible.

What exactly is so horrible about it exactly, they are all part of the
same physical way, but there is various lanes and being able to tag
them individually would make a lot more sense than trying to plot
multiple parallel ways.

> The maximum speed of a way is the maximum speed of that way.  If you want to
> *also* tag lane speeds, feel free.

But that isn't reflecting life, it's reducing it and in turn loosing
information.

> http://bikelaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pulaski-bridge-walkway.jpg?w=324&h=241
>
> One bridge or two?
>
> If it's one, then you are off-topic.

Please explain exactly how that is two bridges, it's physically one
bridge with multiple lanes even if one of those lanes isn't for cars.