[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 15

Fri Jan 11 13:52:23 GMT 2013

Just my clarification ... we are blessed just about all those bridge types
except the gondola. First,on first glance 'movable' subsumes all the other
movable types. if it is exclusive of those, I might suggest
'movable_other', or something similar (our former I-520 Evergreen Point
bridge had a bulge, which had a 'retractable' span (see
http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/03/01/47/793032/3/628x471.jpg ). Also, when the
bridge has multiple types of structures and spans, how is that addressed -
i.e. beam, floating, truss, and viaduct probably simultaneously exist on
the same named 'bridge, is each way segment named the same but separately?
Or just the primary distinctive feature? Could you tag the I-90 Bridge from
Seattle to Bellevue as an example (Tunnel - beam - viaduct - float - beam -
etc.)?

Thanks,
Michael Patrick

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:00 AM, <tagging-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>         tagging at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         tagging-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         tagging-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key (Deanna Earley)
>    2. Re: Source tag - deprecated for use on objects? (Deanna Earley)
>    3. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key (Rob Nickerson)
>    4. Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types (Christopher Hoess)
>    5. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types (Clifford Snow)
>    6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types (Christopher Hoess)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:58:55 +0000
> From: Deanna Earley <dee at earlsoft.co.uk>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key
> Message-ID: <50EEE53F.7060107 at earlsoft.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi all.
>
> I have proposed the start of the roller_coaster key as way to
> standardise on tagging of roller coaster features. Especially now we're
> getting details enough to be able to include this extra information.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:roller_coaster
>
> The initial proposal is just for the track and station values but other
> values will be valid.
>
> Any and all comments and feedback are welcome on the talk page
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/key:roller_coaster
>
> Many thanks
> (Resent as my original on 2012/12/10 doesn't seem to have been approved)
>
> --
> Deanna Earley (dee at earlsoft.co.uk)
>
> web:    http://www.earlsoft.co.uk
> phone:  +44 (0)780 8369596
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:12:11 +0000
> From: Deanna Earley <dee at earlsoft.co.uk>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?
> Message-ID: <50EEE85B.6000302 at earlsoft.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 07/01/2013 22:16, Pieren wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Eckhart W?rner <ewoerner at kde.org> wrote:
> >> Except that source-tag-on-object does not work either for real-world
> mapping. Source tags are rarely updated when the source changes.
> >>
> >> Eckhart
> >
> > I think this discussion and previous ones about this topic
> > demonstrates one point : sourcing in OSM will never be perfect.
> > Because we have elements with history from multiple contributors and
> > with attributes from multiple sources. Because we cannot expecte
> > people to always have a single source per changeset. Because we cannot
> > expect people to always insert or update the tag source each time they
> > modify something.
>
> Exactly.
> A changeset I uploaded the other day had some data realigned with Bing
> (from OS StreetView), local knowledge and GPS traces.
>
> Doing this with source on changeset would require bits and pieces of
> work, many changesets (no doubt, I'd forget a bit) or a single "This
> data came from Bing, GPS, my knowledge, OS streetview, I'll let you
> guess what and where"
>
> This is the reason there are tags like source:name, source:othertag, etc.
>
> Regarding changing the source when it's realligned, sadly people don't
> do things properly, but that's why we have the history.
>
> --
> Deanna Earley (dee at earlsoft.co.uk)
>
> web:    http://www.earlsoft.co.uk
> phone:  +44 (0)780 8369596
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:25:05 +0000
> From: Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAK4yQTmdNjuNJnLNJFzA+Cf_ya2znWO8ibmjfxQNxQ_ciEoSaQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Good start :-)
>
> One point that jumps to mind: I would imagine that you will find the
> "layer=*" tag to be better than "level=*".
>
> All the best,
> Rob
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130110/10878e13/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:42:31 -0500
> From: Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAHkn4E_oBSEkkTP0Hd7KB6EJMW1S2oVbZ9masw_bGBpnSnLgCA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Greetings,
>
> I'd like to draw your attention to the following proposal:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types
>
> In short, it's a scheme for marking up bridges (using key:bridge and
> key:bridge_type) that's largely based on existing values from Taginfo
> and fairly comprehensive. Outside of OSM, there's quite a bit of
> interest in bridges, by hobbyists (e.g., bridgehunter.com) and as
> objects of tourism or aesthetic interest (particularly covered and
> suspension bridges). It makes sense that OSM should support more
> detail for bridges, in general, than just whether or not they exist.
>
>  The Humanitarian Data Model includes tagging with a third key,
> BaseMaterial, to indicate whether the bridge is made of wood, stone,
> iron, etc., but I would prefer to raise that as a separate proposal to
> keep the scope of this one manageable. Please leave comments, as I
> believe properly documenting these values would increase their use by
> taggers and make rendering support more likely.
>
> Yours,
>
> --
> Chris Hoess
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:00:17 -0800
> From: Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADAoPLqVkip8EVQdx34-uV1VPBSDQQcz+8MbsKaCdmrgNm1L4g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > In short, it's a scheme for marking up bridges (using key:bridge and
> > key:bridge_type) that's largely based on existing values from Taginfo
> > and fairly comprehensive. Outside of OSM, there's quite a bit of
> > interest in bridges, by hobbyists (e.g., bridgehunter.com) and as
> > objects of tourism or aesthetic interest (particularly covered and
> > suspension bridges). It makes sense that OSM should support more
> > detail for bridges, in general, than just whether or not they exist.
> >
>
> Very through list of bridge types. Far more than I'm familiar with.
> Question - are you proposing that we map in the pier (support) as a node on
> the bridge similar to towers for power lines?
>
> --
> Clifford
>
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130110/9a875a01/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:03:03 -0500
> From: Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
> Message-ID:
>         <CAHkn4E--eWhfNkPUcP381_3_DW3J6U5mYUjPz=n-Qjx2j=
> 37PA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Very through list of bridge types. Far more than I'm familiar with.
> Question
> > - are you proposing that we map in the pier (support) as a node on the
> > bridge similar to towers for power lines?
>
> At user discretion, yes. It's probably most useful for when you have
> an abandoned/removed bridge from which the piers and/or abutments
> remain; it might also be of interest for marine folks (for bridges
> over navigable waters). Doing it for viaducts and trestles is probably
> less useful.
>
> --
> Chris Hoess
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 15
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130111/4beb8291/attachment.html>