Proposed features/Bridge Number
Canceled in favour of the ref attribute on Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels.
| Bridge Number | |
|---|---|
| Status: | Canceled (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Gerv |
| Tagging: | over_ref/under_ref=<number> |
| Applies to: | way |
| Definition: | The bridge reference number or code |
| Rendered as: | Text annotation for bridge |
| Draft start: | 2008-02-03 |
| RFC start: | * |
| Vote start: | 2008-03-05 |
| Vote end: | 2008-08-02 |
Contents |
Proposal
Canal bridges, and some other bridge types too (railway bridges, certainly) have bridge numbers for navigation or for quick unambiguous reference. Example: a local railway bridge has a sign on it saying "In case of bridge strike, call 0800 ?????? and quote bridge number N12345". Canal boaters use bridge numbers as a primary means of navigation and direction. We need a tag to encode this. Because a bridge may be given a reference by both the thing passing over and the thing passing under it, we have two tags - over_ref and under_ref.
Tagging
over_ref=ref
under_ref=ref
Both over_ref and under_ref are placed on the way which has "bridge=yes" (or whatever the correct bridge tagging is), i.e. the "over" way.
Rendering
Text annotation next to bridge
Discussion
Older discussion moved to Talk page and suggested changes incorporated.
See also
Voting
- I approve this proposal -- Gerv 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --Eimai 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal -- Thewinch 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
I disapprove this proposal. It's complicated but still doesn't work in a all cases - e.g. what about two bridges above each other. Either a simple approach that works in 90% or a complicated that really works in all cases. -- Ulfl 01:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)- Ulfl 11:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ulfl: What do you mean by "two bridges above each other"? Can you provide an example on OSM? Can you suggest a scheme which incorporates these cases? -- Gerv 08:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
Well, the ground, a bridge over the ground and a second bridge over the first one. No. No. - Ulfl 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I disapprove. Use Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels instead. --Bkr 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disapprove. Use Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels instead. --Cbm 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Use Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels instead. --Krauti 21:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disapprove. Tagging bridge numbers sounds fine. However, relations look like a more flexible solution, now that they're available. Lazzko 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disapprove. Use Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels instead. --Elwood 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. xylome 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
