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

[Jason Gerecke]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:19 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/9/21 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>
>  > Even if there is a concrete barrier or other form of barrier that would
> > prevent a car crossing?  Why are bridges different?
>
> Usually because bridges narrow things to make it cheaper to cross a
> river etc, however my point still stands a way is a physical thing, if
> there is only one physical thing then that's all that should be mapped
> and lanes should be tagged independently of the way.
>
>
A way is not a physical thing. A way is just a group of nodes in the OSM
database. What that group of nodes represents is entirely up to the
community. We have ways that represent pieces of asphalt, but we also have
ways that represent completely non-physical city outlines. If I got people
to agree to the convention, ways could represent the airways that planes
often fly along.

I personally feel that when it comes to mapping roads, we should be mapping
the *network* (that is, the paths of travel), not the *asphalt*. If
individual paths of travel cannot be accurately represented with a single
way, they should be represented with multiple ways. Since a car cannot drive
on a bridge's bike path, there should be multiple ways comprising the single
bridge.

Jason G.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090920/ed3d7f7d/attachment.html>