[OSM-newbies] Evalated Walkways

[Steve Bennett]

Since we're all chiming in, I have to say, I don't see what's wrong
with "highway=footway, bridge=yes". That's exactly how I would tag
similar instances, like a pedestrian overpass over a freeway, which
looks extremely similar to this thing.

Inventing a new "ramp:elevated" tag seems a bit pointless. The
distinction between a bridge and an "elevated ramp" is a matter of
hair-splitting. We don't really gain much by inventing a new tag for
every object which is slightly different from existing categories.

Actually, now that I look at the definition of Key:ramp, that doesn't
look like the right tag for the job. That tag is about micromapping
accessibility features of a set of stairs, not describing a large
walkway in its own right. I can see general purpose most renderers
always ignoring the tag, meaning your "elevated ramp" will be rendered
like a footpath on the ground.

Steve

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Trevor Hook
<trevor.k.hook at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have decided the best description for this structure is a ramp, so I have
> tagged it as follows.
>
> highway=footway
> layer=1
> surface=wood
> ramp=yes
> ramp:wheelchair=yes
> ramp:elevated=yes
>
> The last tag is a new one I have just created, I have added a comment to the
> talk page of key:ramp to detail what I have done and why.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The wiki is not the finite answer. If it's lacking an item, add it, be
>>
>> only if needed, and on the Newbies list, the answer should be Ask, not
>> Add, as in this case.
>>
>>>
>>> it aerial_path or Catwalk etc.
>>
>> would likely be overly detailed  if there's anything generally right
>>
>>>  so viaduct could be used.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaduct
>>
>> Good point, a foot  viaduct is what it is.
>>
>> But again you quote Wikipedia to choose OSM tags. OSM is not whole
>> language but a smaller tagging vocabulary for a database.
>>
>> In OSM schema, it turns out Viaduct was rejected as a tag and accepted as
>> a value.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Viaduct
>>>
>>> Status: Obsoleted (inactive)
>>> This proposal has been obsoleted by the approved "Bridge" proposal.
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bridge
>>>
>>> There is a single "bridge=<type>" tag:
>>>
>>> bridge=yes
>>> bridge=aqueduct
>>> bridge=viaduct
>>> bridge=swing
>>> bridge=...
>>
>>  so i suggest
>>
>> highway=footway, bridge=viaduct,
>>
>> and at least in the WDW case where we will be adding footway and service
>> ways beneath,
>>      layer=1
>> although the squirrels and hedgehogs won't have layer=0 paths to conflict
>> in the treetop case, there might be a ground level nature trail as well.
>>
>>  (Why not tag with best word from wikipedia even if not otherwise used in
>> OSM? While we don't tag for one render,  we also don't tag to make the
>> renderes' job impossible either; a custom tag usevid nowhere else will NEVER
>> render unless the author provides patches to each renderer, and other
>> database uses won't know what to make of it either.)
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>> n1vux at arrl.net bill.n1vux at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> newbies mailing list
>> newbies at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
>