[Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

[Georg Feddern]

Am 03.04.2014 21:43, schrieb Richard Z:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
>>> as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert
>>> are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think
>>> of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the
>>> mountains. The GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are lucky,
>>> the brunnel 2-3m. Mapping this the old fashioned way will produce
>>> junk data, not precision.
>> Rubbish. Please don't rely on a GPSr. It is only one, of many, ways
>> to survey. If I see a small bridge over a stream, say 3m I'll map is
>> as that, because that's how it accurately is in the real world. Some
>> users have access to detailed aerial imagery to help map accurately.
> so again: *** <<a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains >> ***
>
> Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!!!!!
>
> In the mountains you are very lucky if your imagery has less than 10 meter
> offset and forests render most aerial imagery useless.

The offset (either GPS or imagery) has influence on _where_ you can map 
the bridge - but not much on _how_ you are able to map it.
I'm neither a friend of a "crossing" node when there is no connection in 
reality.
Missing or loosing the "bridge" tag I would always assume a ford there ...

Georg