[Tagging] Bridges redux

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Sun May 19 14:20:45 UTC 2013

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com> wrote:
> conflict-prevention measure. Demoting "cantilever" into that key, for
> instance, makes it impossible to express both "cantilever" and "truss"
> simultaneously, which presents a problem. Now, I've realized that
> "bridge=covered" is actually superfluous to "bridge=yes; covered=yes"; if
> that goes away,

I might be mistaken, but I don't think this is quite true. A "covered
bridge" is a very particular kind of historical structure. You
wouldn't call a modern bridge where the footway happened to be
sheltered from the elements a "covered bridge". Anyway.

> Because it's almost always tagged on the lower, rather than the upper, way,
> I'm inclined to drop "culvert" entirely barring a strong argument to keep
> it.

Yeah I thought so too, but if you look closer, the description here is
very specifically of a type of bridge which is part culvert, part
bridge. That is, a kind of brick structure which both has a tunnel for
water to pass through, and directly supports the roadway. (Why we
would want to specifically tag such a thing I'm less clear on...)


More information about the Tagging mailing list