[Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

Philip Barnes phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Mon Aug 11 08:45:29 UTC 2014


On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 08:24 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> risk_of_grounding=yes ?

That is one attribute that can be applied to a humpback bridge, level
crossing or even some stretches of road.

The other issues with humpback bridges are risk of taking off, and
hitting oncoming vehicles due to lack of visibility.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> On Aug 10, 2014 5:14 PM, "Colin Smale" <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>         It is neither constructed with the intention of calming
>         traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge
>         is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of
>         using a different tag for what is clearly a different
>         attribute.
>         
>         --colin
>         
>          
>         On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote:
>         
>         > Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*?
>         > 
>         > cu fly
>         > 
>         > Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale:
>         > > No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur
>         > > across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by
>         > > having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a
>         > > bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in
>         > > the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly
>         > > indicating a "risk of grounding" often seen at railway
>         > > crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking
>         > > the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then
>         > > we would miss the many bridges which "the average person"
>         > > would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I
>         > > would suggest something like "a bridge requiring driving
>         > > speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile" (i.e. not
>         > > because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure
>         > > this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of
>         > > dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that
>         > > calculating whether a particular truck can pass a
>         > > particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It
>         > > can be rather complex, which is why products like [2]
>         > > exist. --colin [1]
>         > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: 
>         > > > I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care
>         > > > about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting
>         > > > only in some territory, why not to define this tag
>         > > > specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define
>         > > > "humpiness" of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and
>         > > > cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is
>         > > > me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is
>         > > > really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves
>         > > > <yvecai at gmail.com <mailto:yvecai at gmail.com>>: There is a
>         > > > lot of things not of interest to the majority of users
>         > > > in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014
>         > > > 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl
>         > > > <mailto:colin.smale at xs4all.nl>> wrote: On 2014-08-10
>         > > > 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype
>         > > > of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't
>         > > > see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also,
>         > > > bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default.
>         > > > It does not define routing aspects or adds any features
>         > > > to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some
>         > > > humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't
>         > > > slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will
>         > > > be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful
>         > > > for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the
>         > > > road.
>         > > > https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>         > > _______________________________________________ Tagging
>         > > mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>         > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Tagging mailing list
>         > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>         > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Tagging mailing list
>         Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>         
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





More information about the Tagging mailing list