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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> That isn't tagging reality, the bridge doesn't have multiple ways
>

You clearly define "way" differently than I do, and differently than the
current definition.  The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM
today.


> there isn't even physical seperation on the bridge itself between most
> of the lanes when the lanes shift, it's simply lights above the lanes
> indicating direction.
>

At least you admit there *is* physical separation between *some* lanes.  If
you propose treating the 8 lanes as two ways, one six lane way (with a
one-way restriction during some part of the day) and one two lane way (which
is always one way), I can accept that.  But I don't accept treating the two
roads that are clearly separated as the same way as the other roads which
are clearly not.

> Be specific about your proposed solution, though, and maybe I'll find that
> > I'm wrong.
>
> 1 bridge, multiple lanes. How much simplier do you want it?
>

That answers nothing.  Of course we have bridge and multiple lanes.


> There isn't 2 bridges please show me the second bridge because I'm
> sure it will be news to at least the 4.5million people in Sydney at
> the very least.
>

I never claimed there are 2 bridges.  There is one bridge, with multiple
ways.  "bridge" does not equal "way".

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8&ll=40.727889,-74.100804&spn=0.002041,0.003825&t=h&z=18is
one bridge, with more than one way.  You seem to be the only one
claiming
this isn't true.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090920/42dcc211/attachment.html>