[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Christopher Hoess cahoess at gmail.com
Sat Sep 28 13:10:10 UTC 2013


I'm officially agnostic on that question! I know both "tunnel=culvert" and
"culvert=yes" are used much more frequently in OSM than "bridge=culvert"; I
think one of them predominates, but I don't know which.


Chris Hoess

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> I have been following this thread for a few days and have one question
> although it might be too late to ask it. Do you want to drop the tag
> "culvert" in favor of "tunnel" altogether? I see from the discussion that
> some people prefer "tunnel=culvert" in the cases where I have used
> "culvert=yes" and "layer=-1".
> I have done some mapping in Alaska and there are many, many culverts in
> use as drainage ditches, etc., all over the state. To call a culvert, which
> is usually a heavy, corrugated, galvanized metal pipe from 1 to 6 feet in
> diameter, a tunnel is a bit of a stretch IMO. I can live with the change
> but wanted to pass along my thoughts to you.
> Thanks,
> Dave Swarthout
> "AlaskaDave"
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Christopher Hoess <cahoess at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> I've just been over the bridge types proposal <
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types> which
>> I brought to the list twice earlier this year. I think the bugs have been
>> pretty well ironed out, and further changes would largely be a matter of
>> taste, so I bring it to you for voting.
>> Summary points since the last discussion:
>> The "bridge_type" key has been changed to the more appropriate
>> "bridge:structure". The installed base of "bridge_type" is relatively small
>> (547 objects), so this shouldn't be a big deal. Typology will stay in
>> "bridge" for simplicity.
>> I decided to keep the "bridge=movable"; "bridge:movable=..." tagging
>> scheme. I think the complexity of the movable bridge types, plus the fact
>> that the average person may not know how to distinguish them, makes a
>> two-tiered hierarchy reasonable here.
>> I dropped "culvert", since our accepted practice seems to use that to tag
>> a tunnel on the lower way at such crossings.
>> I know I can't please everyone in every point, but I think your input has
>> made this a very sound proposal with plenty of room for future extension.
>> Thanks for your consideration.
>> Yours gratefully,
>> --
>> Chris Hoess
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130928/0fc57a78/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list