[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/2/2 Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com>:
> what should be the values for
> the "bridge" tag?
>
> I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between
> "abandoned", "damaged", "removed", etc. as I don't have a
> well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is
> sufficiently complicated as it stands. It would make renderer support
> much simpler if the renderer only needed to parse "bridge=yes" and not
> worry about the "bridge:structure" and "bridge:type" tags unless it
> wanted to


+1
these are all bridge values with more than 100 occurrences, my
comments inline after the percentages:

yes
1 656 829 97.79%  the very most
✔
null
viaduct
24 314 1.44%   not sure if we need this, what is the difference to a
bridge? It mostly tells that there is a road or railway going over it
(what you can already see from the data, as you can see the length)
✔
A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans.
no
7 572 0.45%   hint for other mappers, no special treatment
-
null
suspension
1 319 0.08%  -> bridge_structure / bridge:structure
✔
null
aqueduct
1 084 0.06%  prefer historic=aqueduct for historic aqueducts (also
fragments) and would rather introduce a tag similar to "power" for
water if I wanted to map modern aqueducts. Anyway an aqueduct has not
much to do with bridges
-
null
true
741 0.04%  the same as yes
-
null
abandoned
556 0.03%  could be an idea to keep these. There is also the
alternative way to tag it abandoned:bridge=yes
-
null
swing
525 0.03%  -> bridge_type / bridge:type
✔
null
culvert
282 0.02%  not really a bridge, is it? Isn't this a tube?
-
null
boardwalk  maybe not really a bridge, but could be kept IMHO
198  -> bridge_type / bridge:type


I agree, looks as if bridge=yes is the only remaining value if we
introduce type and structure and prefix abandoned, disused, etc.

cheers,
Martin