[Tagging] bridge=aqueduct mapped as polygon riverbank?

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jan 3 17:44:11 GMT 2011

2010/12/19 Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>:
> Hi
> Does anyone have an example of a bridge=aqueduct/yes that's been mapped as
> polygon riverbank to give width to the waterway?

I would say that riverbank is not the right tag for any kind of
bridges. The wiki says for riverbanks: "This describes the tagging
scheme for large rivers, or sections of a river which are wide enough
to require mapping of distinct areas of water/river banks." so doesn't
actually define anything for canals ;-) (OK, maybe we should amend
this definition and substitute "river" by "waterway" or "body of
flowing water" so that canals are comprised). The "require" part of
the definition is pointless IMHO, as it is never "required" but could
be useful anywhere.

I guess your question refers to situations like:

more can be found here:

In German those would probably not be called "aqueduct" at all, (in
German this is called "Trogbrücke", which is kind of a bridge), that's
why I have some barrier in accepting that this is a kind of aqueduct
(maybe "navigable aqueduct" is not part of "aqueducts"?). I think this
is not a problem reduced to waterways but we should have a better
representation for bridges in general. I'd propose to have an
outlining polygon for the bridge, that describes the whole bridge
area, and to which a name for the bridge and other data can be
associated, which would also solve the problem whether 2 adjacent
bridges are really 2 separate bridges or simply one that seems to be 2
in OSM.


More information about the Tagging mailing list