[OSM-newbies] Two Questions

[Peter Childs]

2009/11/24 James Ewen <ve6srv at gmail.com>:
> 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
>

If you can't map the river, but know its name, Put a stub in with its
name on it, at least then we know that "This bridge cross the river X
but we don't know what the river X does" which is better than nothing.
when someone gets round to mapping the rivers they can then join all
the stubs up....

Peter.