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

[Warin]

On 6/1/2016 7:18 AM, Richard wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
If you and they don't 'like' them .. don't enter them and don't render them.
There are a few things in OSM that I have no interest in .. but I don't advocate there demotion.

>>
>> I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case
>> why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple
>> error waiting to be corrected.
> so what do you do if you drove along a track know there is not a single
> ford but don't have enough information to know whether there is
> a bridge or culvert in most places? There are some notable bridges but
> everything that is notable probably deserves at least a man_made=bridge
> anyway while the rest ist just I don't get wet feet here.

If you don't know if there are bridges/culverts then you don't map them ...

>> Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to
>> apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the
>> other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far.
> I have seen many examples of culverts applied to the wrong segment
> of the way.. theese seem to go easily unnoticed for long periods of
> time.
>

Any entry is prone to error. Even ford=no!
Introducing a new tag/value just introduces more possible errors if you want to look at it that way.
You are looking for a solution to a problem, but your proposed solution just adds yet another potential problem.