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

[Richard]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:00:04PM +0000, Pierre Béland wrote:
> 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.

You mean 
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_bridge

I had that (or very similar) idea before but did not earn much approval.. hence 
this idea with ford=no.

Richard


>  
>  
> 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
> 
> 
>