[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Jan 12 23:55:11 GMT 2013


Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some
other indication that it's referring to the general engineering and
architecture of the bridge rather than the vague "type" which might get
confused with "foot, cycleway, motorway" etc; and _ which isn't a
good separator for what is effectively a subkey.


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Michael Patrick <geodesy99 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ( My apologies to the list for inadvertently regurgitating an undigested
> reply back onto the list )
>
> >  I think I like the "bridge:movable" suggestion made there. (So movable
>> bridges would be tagged, e.g., "bridge=movable; bridge:movable= bascule"
>> and so forth.)
>>
>
> So would there be a reflective tag "bridge:fixed", etc. (I'll go look)
>
> That also makes it a little easier to parse for a (hypothetical)
>> downstream piece of routing software; it doesn't care to learn about
>> all the different varieties of movable bridge, it just needs to be
>> able to spot bridges that could open and leave you stuck in a traffic
>> jam.
>>
>
> Which is what prompted my question about the individual span types, the
> various bridges have names like 'The Eastern High Rise', etc. that radio
> traffic announcers and EMS uses, and there are exit opportunities for some.
>
>
>> > This is my approximation for the eastbound lanes
>> of I-90, moving from west to east. Segment 1 (over roads):
>> "bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam". Segment 2: "bridge=yes;
>> bridge_type=truss". ("bridge=viaduct" might be OK for this, too;
>> that's sort of a matter of taste.) Segment 3: "bridge=yes;
>> bridge_type=arch". Segment 4: "bridge=yes; bridge_type=floating".
>> Segment 5: "bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch". Segment 6: "bridge=yes;
>> bridge_type=beam".
>>
>
> Thank you for your time constructing the example.
>
>
>> > .... And this kind of "span-by-span" breakdown does have some potential
>> when it comes to navigation. In bridges crossing navigable estuaries, it's
>> not uncommon to have a long series of fixed spans with a movable span
>> somewhere in the middle over the navigation channel. In that case, it's
>> certainly useful to distinguish between the movable and the fixed spans, as
>> it defines the location of the channel.
>>
>
> I've noticed around here maintenance, reconstruction
> like seismic refitting, etc seem to be defined by the span type. So I think
> it would be useful also.
>
> Michael Patrick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130112/58a430b0/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list