[OSM-talk] Minor highways crossing, was ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

[Pierre Béland]

A good simplification would be to allow bridge=culvert or tunnel=culvert on a highway node A lot simpler and more rapid to trace or revise highways with successive culverts.
 
 
Pierre 


      De : Richard <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
 À : talk at openstreetmap.org 
 Envoyé le : mardi 31 mai 2016 9h03
 Objet : [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?
   
Hi,

often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge 
or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more 
trouble than use and I tend to agree.
Splitting the ways and applying a bunch of tags for every single 
tunnel/bridge is work and has a non-zero chance to introduce some 
errors for zero gain.

So I was wondering - if we know that a long segment of a highway
has no fords - could it be marked with ford=no? Or other similar
attribute?

For some classes of roads like freeways this could be also
declared to be the implicit default.

Richard



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


  
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe HTML a été nettoyée...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20160531/f9645d25/attachment.html>