> road that happens to be a bridge. It would be good to get pointers to
> the situations where people think this proposed rule makes sense, and we
> can then see if we think there are tagging errors.

you are right, I should have mentioned the reason. The new housenumber
code is much slower than the old one, the major reason is that it has to
find matching roads without using the name. In the default style,
I've added some rules to exclude roads which probably never should be used
for adresses, e.g. motorways, ferries and ways created by the --make-opposite-cycleways
option.
Marios idea was that bridges and tunnels are like those,
but it turned out that we have valid addresses on bridges and in level -1 areas.

So, I think the short answer is
"no, we should not exclude bridges"

thanks for the feedback to all others too

Gerd