[Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>:

>
> Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
> would be easily fixable.. just how?



I think tagging the type of bridge as road attribute might be an
exxageration. We should start mapping bridges as objects (area) and then
add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe man_made=bridge?
and bridge:type? This object could get further attributes so that they can
be combined. Current bridge values (the road attribute) are a mess:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values

viaduct <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=viaduct>
39 055
1.76%
✔
A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans.
no <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=no>
6 987
0.32%
-

suspension <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=suspension>
2 035
0.09%
✔

aqueduct <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=aqueduct>
1 821
0.08%
-

abandoned <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=abandoned>
776
0.04%
-

culvert <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=culvert>
734
0.03%
-

swing <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bridge=swing>


"culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there is
not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
construction and construction material, by shape, by function/features,
etc.). See also here for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140807/4cedbdb8/attachment.html>