[talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue May 22 23:25:03 UTC 2018


On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland 
> along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of 
> the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the 
> area. I tried commenting on a changeset 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and 
> again a week ago without a response, they have been active in that 
> time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a loss 
> on how to contact them.
>
Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.

> My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact 
> I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or 
> bridge when they are physically so small, however because they haven't 
> been mapped someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the 
> culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter 
> and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is 
> usually built up a little in the low lying area), and many of the 
> bridges are only a metre long timber bridge especially those added for 
> MTB.
>
> The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on 
> nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many 
> which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a 
> shared node.
>
> I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting 
> ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of 
> sync and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not 
> putting something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a 
> ford: "You are both on the highway and in the waterway, and not 
> separated logically as a stream under a bridge would be" makes 
> complete sense, and I don't want shared nodes for these cases even 
> though many streams are intermittent.
>
> Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a 
> waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I 
> can think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing 
> what is there so someone doesn't add a ford.

OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove them. 
Edit wars.

A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.

I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing 
details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a crossing 
.. the details are not viewable in imagery.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180523/babde001/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list