[Tagging] Bridges redux
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed May 8 21:39:44 UTC 2013
2013/5/8 Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com>
> I've started revising my bridge tagging proposal
> based on the comments received in the last go-round in January. There
> are three specific questions I'd like some feedback on before I submit
> a full RFC again.
thank you for reviving this. Bridge details are really a problem right now.
> I'm in favor of placing the "structure"
> classifications under "bridge:structure" to make it clear what's being
> classified; there are about 550 occurrences of "bridge_type" at
> present, most of which can go to "bridge:structure". The bigger
> question is whether the "typological" values (covered bridges,
> viaducts, trestle) should stay under "bridge" or move to a
> "bridge:type" key.
I think we could also keep typology in bridge=* like we do for buildings,
but if there was a majority for bridge:type I had no problem either.
>My second question is whether culverts should be included in this
>I included values for culverts in the "structure"
>classification to maintain compatibility with the Humanitarian Data
>but tagging culverts on the overhead way (rather than the way that
>passes through them) is a very small minority tagging style. JaakkoH,
>who's active in Haiti work, suggested dropping it, and I'm inclined to
>follow his advice.
+1, I'd drop culverts from the bridge tagging, they are underneath
Maybe we could also add some key to distinguish the kind of material of the
structure, e.g. masonry, riveted steel, iron, wood, ...?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging