Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: r3099 Road name on bridge info window (Read 4779 times) previous topic - next topic

r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Road name on bridge info window shows meaningless road name.

Re: r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Reply #1 –
Would it suffice to show the name of the first way only in the crossing info window?

In all other circumstances, the name of the first way is either redundant (it is in the title for the way info window) or senseless (bridges, tunnels, elevated ways).

In the latter cases, it would be far more intuitive to show the name of the bridge/tunnel/elevated way in the title of the window instead of simply "bridge" etc. Another option would be to show thename of the bridge/etc instead of the meaningless way name. Any opinions?

Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.

Re: r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Reply #2 –
I would vote for the name of the elevated way/tunnel bridge as the first name; this would be more consistent, since there can be second name.

Re: r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Reply #3 –
Sorry, I can't understand what you are talking about.

The only thing what I am saying is this is not sand_track and there is no relationship between sand_track and brick stone viaduct.
That's all.

Re: r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Reply #4 –
Quote from: prissi – on
I would vote for the name of the elevated way/tunnel bridge as the first name; this would be more consistent, since there can be second name.
You mean to show 'stone viaduct' instead of 'sand_track'? And 'Bridge' as title of the window?

Then it would be better to show something like 'Way' as the title of the way info window, and
'sand_track' in the window itself.
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.

Re: r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Reply #5 –
I would keep bridge; otherwise it is very hard to tell bridges from elevated ways.

Re: r3099 Road name on bridge info window

Reply #6 –
is now changed in rev 3101.
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.