[Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 01:54:37 UTC 2018

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:10 PM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I left out the references to the wiki page: [1], which clearly shows a bridge building, similar in structure to the one I mapped, only much bigger. It straddles a motorway and houses a huge car park. "My" bridge-building is smaller, straddles a park and is inhabited (residential), but the basic concept is the same.
> Both are bridge buildings, not bridges.
> The "tunnel" below is also not correct, because the bridge building is entirely off the ground, like a road bridge.
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbridge

OK, building=bridge it shall be, for my case. I see that the highway
and stream beneath still have to be 'covered' to render properly, and
raising the building to layer>0 doesn't help. The change is made. I
wasn't the one who used 'tunnel' - I agree that it's not right.
'covered=yes' is close enough. If you look straight up from the road,
you will see building and not sky, so the way is indeed covered.

At this point, I'm not going to try to map the short footway that
exists under the building, which runs roughly on the centerline of the
span and in turn crosses the stream on a small bridge. Too much visual
clutter for too little value added.

The negative building levels are correct. The floor numbering attempts
to be continuous among the connected buildings, and the ones to the
east were built later without renumbering floors; their levels are
lettered A-G. E and F connect to floors 2 and 3 respectively. There's
no connection on the other levels. Level A is still far above the
ravine, and the footway has many steps. It's really intended only as a
fire escape, but I used to use it as a shortcut when my laboratory was
in one of the buildings on the riverfront.

More information about the Tagging mailing list