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

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Camp one is - single way with lanes=4 + bridge section
>>> Camp two would prefer all elements mapped in which case the bridge WOULD
>>> be a separate element.
>>
>> Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a
>> "bridge" relation to indicate they share a common bridge. This could
>> probably be seen as a compromise, and is (I think) a good interim
>> solution, if not a very-long-term solution.
>
> That is simply camp two ...
> The bridge relation would have to have a physical presence at some point!

In that case, just to clarify, I meant
Camp 2a) All elements mapped with the bridge as a *separate* element
(e.g. an area, not a relation)
Camp 2b) All elements mapped with the bridge as a grouping of elements
(a relation, including the ways on the bridge and optionally the area
indicating the bridge surface, etc.)

These are both covered by
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels

> The point I am trying to make is that the two camps HAVE to co-exist.
> What we are looking for is a way to 'rough in' the data, and provide a
> macro level view of things, and then add the NECESSARY detail below that
> so that micro mapping can simply be added to the macro model.

Agreed.