Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/1/13 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture of the bridge rather than the vague type which might get confused with foot, cycleway, motorway etc; and _ which isn't a good separator for what is effectively a subkey. sorry for replying quite late to this thread. I agree with Paul, tagging explicitly the structure in one subtag would be better, and IMHO one subtag is not sufficient for classifying bridges. I'd like to add a reference to another thread about the same topic one year ago: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-January/009162.html In my original proposal, the way I'm using bridge= more or less corresponds to Martin's bridge:type=, and my bridge_type= corresponds to your bridge:structure=. Changing bridge_type to bridge:structure seems reasonable; is it necessary to create a separate bridge:type tag, and if so, what should be the values for the bridge tag? I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between abandoned, damaged, removed, etc. as I don't have a well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is sufficiently complicated as it stands. It would make renderer support much simpler if the renderer only needed to parse bridge=yes and not worry about the bridge:structure and bridge:type tags unless it wanted to. I appreciate all the comments I've received thus far and will make changes to the wiki page soon to incorporate them. -- Chris Hoess ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
2013/2/2 Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com: what should be the values for the bridge tag? I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between abandoned, damaged, removed, etc. as I don't have a well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is sufficiently complicated as it stands. It would make renderer support much simpler if the renderer only needed to parse bridge=yes and not worry about the bridge:structure and bridge:type tags unless it wanted to +1 these are all bridge values with more than 100 occurrences, my comments inline after the percentages: yes 1 656 829 97.79% the very most ✔ null viaduct 24 314 1.44% not sure if we need this, what is the difference to a bridge? It mostly tells that there is a road or railway going over it (what you can already see from the data, as you can see the length) ✔ A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans. no 7 572 0.45% hint for other mappers, no special treatment - null suspension 1 319 0.08% - bridge_structure / bridge:structure ✔ null aqueduct 1 084 0.06% prefer historic=aqueduct for historic aqueducts (also fragments) and would rather introduce a tag similar to power for water if I wanted to map modern aqueducts. Anyway an aqueduct has not much to do with bridges - null true 741 0.04% the same as yes - null abandoned 556 0.03% could be an idea to keep these. There is also the alternative way to tag it abandoned:bridge=yes - null swing 525 0.03% - bridge_type / bridge:type ✔ null culvert 282 0.02% not really a bridge, is it? Isn't this a tube? - null boardwalk maybe not really a bridge, but could be kept IMHO 198 - bridge_type / bridge:type I agree, looks as if bridge=yes is the only remaining value if we introduce type and structure and prefix abandoned, disused, etc. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
Response to selected comments: On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: +1 these are all bridge values with more than 100 occurrences, my comments inline after the percentages: yes 1 656 829 97.79% the very most ✔ null Not surprising, given that other than viaduct (and 1, true) it's the only one supported by the OSM mapnik setup. viaduct 24 314 1.44% not sure if we need this, what is the difference to a bridge? It mostly tells that there is a road or railway going over it (what you can already see from the data, as you can see the length) ✔ A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans. You may be focusing on the wrong attribute: it's the many short spans, not the length, that make a viaduct. I think I'd file it under bridge:type, like a trestle (which also has many short spans). [...snip...] aqueduct 1 084 0.06% prefer historic=aqueduct for historic aqueducts (also fragments) and would rather introduce a tag similar to power for water if I wanted to map modern aqueducts. Anyway an aqueduct has not much to do with bridges - null Ambiguity in the word. In the US, it's used both for long structures carrying drinking or irrigation water, above or below ground (which seems to be your use), but also for elevated structures carrying canals, usually navigable, across lower terrain. The latter use of the word seems very much like a bridge. [...snip...] abandoned 556 0.03% could be an idea to keep these. There is also the alternative way to tag it abandoned:bridge=yes - null As I said, I haven't yet tried to systematize the various ways of saying a bridge is unused/damaged/removed and so on, so I wouldn't interfere with these. Anyway, I agree with your classifications of other values that I haven't quoted. I agree, looks as if bridge=yes is the only remaining value if we introduce type and structure and prefix abandoned, disused, etc. Since it's already renderer-supported, that would be quite helpful. Yours, -- Chris Hoess ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
2013/1/13 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture of the bridge rather than the vague type which might get confused with foot, cycleway, motorway etc; and _ which isn't a good separator for what is effectively a subkey. sorry for replying quite late to this thread. I agree with Paul, tagging explicitly the structure in one subtag would be better, and IMHO one subtag is not sufficient for classifying bridges. I'd like to add a reference to another thread about the same topic one year ago: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-January/009162.html cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture of the bridge rather than the vague type which might get confused with foot, cycleway, motorway etc; and _ which isn't a good separator for what is effectively a subkey. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.comwrote: ( My apologies to the list for inadvertently regurgitating an undigested reply back onto the list ) I think I like the bridge:movable suggestion made there. (So movable bridges would be tagged, e.g., bridge=movable; bridge:movable= bascule and so forth.) So would there be a reflective tag bridge:fixed, etc. (I'll go look) That also makes it a little easier to parse for a (hypothetical) downstream piece of routing software; it doesn't care to learn about all the different varieties of movable bridge, it just needs to be able to spot bridges that could open and leave you stuck in a traffic jam. Which is what prompted my question about the individual span types, the various bridges have names like 'The Eastern High Rise', etc. that radio traffic announcers and EMS uses, and there are exit opportunities for some. This is my approximation for the eastbound lanes of I-90, moving from west to east. Segment 1 (over roads): bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam. Segment 2: bridge=yes; bridge_type=truss. (bridge=viaduct might be OK for this, too; that's sort of a matter of taste.) Segment 3: bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch. Segment 4: bridge=yes; bridge_type=floating. Segment 5: bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch. Segment 6: bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam. Thank you for your time constructing the example. And this kind of span-by-span breakdown does have some potential when it comes to navigation. In bridges crossing navigable estuaries, it's not uncommon to have a long series of fixed spans with a movable span somewhere in the middle over the navigation channel. In that case, it's certainly useful to distinguish between the movable and the fixed spans, as it defines the location of the channel. I've noticed around here maintenance, reconstruction like seismic refitting, etc seem to be defined by the span type. So I think it would be useful also. Michael Patrick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
( My apologies to the list for inadvertently regurgitating an undigested reply back onto the list ) I think I like the bridge:movable suggestion made there. (So movable bridges would be tagged, e.g., bridge=movable; bridge:movable= bascule and so forth.) So would there be a reflective tag bridge:fixed, etc. (I'll go look) That also makes it a little easier to parse for a (hypothetical) downstream piece of routing software; it doesn't care to learn about all the different varieties of movable bridge, it just needs to be able to spot bridges that could open and leave you stuck in a traffic jam. Which is what prompted my question about the individual span types, the various bridges have names like 'The Eastern High Rise', etc. that radio traffic announcers and EMS uses, and there are exit opportunities for some. This is my approximation for the eastbound lanes of I-90, moving from west to east. Segment 1 (over roads): bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam. Segment 2: bridge=yes; bridge_type=truss. (bridge=viaduct might be OK for this, too; that's sort of a matter of taste.) Segment 3: bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch. Segment 4: bridge=yes; bridge_type=floating. Segment 5: bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch. Segment 6: bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam. Thank you for your time constructing the example. And this kind of span-by-span breakdown does have some potential when it comes to navigation. In bridges crossing navigable estuaries, it's not uncommon to have a long series of fixed spans with a movable span somewhere in the middle over the navigation channel. In that case, it's certainly useful to distinguish between the movable and the fixed spans, as it defines the location of the channel. I've noticed around here maintenance, reconstruction like seismic refitting, etc seem to be defined by the span type. So I think it would be useful also. Michael Patrick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
Greetings, I'd like to draw your attention to the following proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types In short, it's a scheme for marking up bridges (using key:bridge and key:bridge_type) that's largely based on existing values from Taginfo and fairly comprehensive. Outside of OSM, there's quite a bit of interest in bridges, by hobbyists (e.g., bridgehunter.com) and as objects of tourism or aesthetic interest (particularly covered and suspension bridges). It makes sense that OSM should support more detail for bridges, in general, than just whether or not they exist. The Humanitarian Data Model includes tagging with a third key, BaseMaterial, to indicate whether the bridge is made of wood, stone, iron, etc., but I would prefer to raise that as a separate proposal to keep the scope of this one manageable. Please leave comments, as I believe properly documenting these values would increase their use by taggers and make rendering support more likely. Yours, -- Chris Hoess ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Very through list of bridge types. Far more than I'm familiar with. Question - are you proposing that we map in the pier (support) as a node on the bridge similar to towers for power lines? At user discretion, yes. It's probably most useful for when you have an abandoned/removed bridge from which the piers and/or abutments remain; it might also be of interest for marine folks (for bridges over navigable waters). Doing it for viaducts and trestles is probably less useful. -- Chris Hoess ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
