[OSM-newbies] Two Questions

James Ewen ve6srv at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 17:30:50 GMT 2009


On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:

> If the bridge is "permanent", i.e., not likely to be removed by a park
> maintenance crew or the next heavy rain, and you are mapping a pathway to
> the street, then I would certainly include the bridge, that is, if the
> ditch is mapped. If there is nothing mapped for the path to cross, then
> (again, in my opinion) there is no need to map the bridge.

If a bridge is required to cross the physical barrier, I would show
the bridge. It indicates to the observer that there must be some type
of physical obstacle to be crossed. Optimally the ditch would be added
to the OSM map as well.

I map the location of bridges on the highways where they cross the
rivers, even though the rivers are not yet mapped. I don't have the
time and energy, nor data to be able to map the millions of miles of
rivers that are crossed by the highways I have been able to track. We
should be importing hydrology data from a government source in the
near future here in Canada as well, so in the mean time, I am content
to map the bridge even if it looks like the bridge has no purpose
currently.

I'd say map what you are interested in mapping to the best of you
ability, representing what is on the ground as accurately as possible.
If you can't or don't want to map the ditch, someone else might come
along later and do it. Map what you see...

James
VE6SRV




More information about the newbies mailing list