Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now fixed in place with bridge:movable=* but not bridge=movable. So you could search for bridge:movable=swing and find both working and fixed swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the relevance of such spans.) This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle of least surprise. Good point. I can easily see people correcting bridge=yes to bridge=movable because they see the bridge:movable tag on a span. What if we made bridge=fixed a synonym of bridge=yes? coming back to this because I am now looking at adapting JOSM presets for the current bridge definitions and there it would appear that if bridge=yes + bridge:movable=* were considered a valid choice the dialog would directly offer it as first choice and 99% of contributors would accidentally select it in places where they actually wanted to select bridge=movable+bridge:movable=* at least I do not see how to tweak the preset otherwise. So a better combination is required for historic movable bridges before this gets done. Some alternatives that already were suggested or that I came up right now: (1) bridge=fixed + bridge:movable (2) bridge=historic_movable + bridge:movable (3) bridge=movable + bridge:movable + bridge:movable_status=operational|frequent|rare|historic|suspended I would prefer something like (3) as it offers the possibility to additional information about how frequently the moving mechanism is operated. Also there could be bridge:movable_schedule in addition to this? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote: I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing hilly terrain; all of these situations can be found in central Ohio. Using this tag on a node at the crest of the hill should be acceptable, as the hazard may occur (potentially in multiple places) along fairly long way. any good name for such a tag? It should be also good for dips if possible.. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Richard Z. wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote: I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing hilly terrain; all of these situations can be found in central Ohio. Using this tag on a node at the crest of the hill should be acceptable, as the hazard may occur (potentially in multiple places) along fairly long way. any good name for such a tag? It should be also good for dips if possible.. If I recall correctly from the time, decades ago, when I worked a summer on a survey crew, vertical curve was the term used for an area where the grade (angle) of the roadway changed. That might be an American only term though. One of the design criteria on a road is the sight distance which could be used for the crest of a hill or a humpy bridge but would not be as good for a dip. Tod ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On 13/08/2014 05:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Some people consider freeform values in bridge tag as a problem and think that bridge tag should have only yes/no values and specific type of bridge should be stored in a separate tag. People are entitled to their opinions, but I'd argue that freeform tagging is one of the main things that's made OSM the success that it is. It is notable as these people maintain Default Style - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440 Unfortunately recent changes to the default style have made it less useful in the big world outside a couple of a couple of well-mapped European cities, and less useful if you want a map to use to navigate with rather than create something pretty to hang on the wall (1). Just as we shouldn't tag incorrectly for the renderer, we shouldn't avoid mapping detail because if we do so it won't get rendered. Even without these changes the default style is already less relevant than it was because of the many other map styles available and many different ways of viewing OSM data (the take-up of OSMAnd being one example, CraigsLists's (unfortunately out of date!) OSM-based maps are another). Cheers, Andy (1) https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747#issuecomment-50188728 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 11:18, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com ha scritto: I was thinking maybe bridge:architecture would cover both bridge:structure and bridge:geometry but I guess it is too late to change? I think bridge structure is fine, for a potential bridge architecture key I would imagine it is about style, e.g. values like neo-gothic or postmodern or rationalist or futuristic etc. FWIW, bridges are rarely designed by architects, they are a genuine field of engineering cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:54:11AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess cahoess@gmail.c caho...@gmail.com As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out the critique a bit so I can try to improve things. Some people consider freeform values in bridge tag as a problem and think that bridge tag should have only yes/no values and specific type of bridge should be stored in a separate tag. It is notable as these people maintain Default Style - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440 the result of the mentioned redesign is exactly that - there should be much fewer freeform values now. Other subtypes of bridges (humpback, suspension, drawbridge, swing etc) have been moved to subtags bridge:structure and bridge:movable. It would be important that those few bridge values that remained after the redesign are rendered. Also rendering the outline of man_made=bridge would be a huge progress. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing hilly terrain; all of these situations can be found in central Ohio. Using this tag on a node at the crest of the hill should be acceptable, as the hazard may occur (potentially in multiple places) along fairly long way. PS — the american MUTCD has a warning sign for vertical curvatures that may cause long vehicles to ground. David K ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now fixed in place with bridge:movable=* but not bridge=movable. So you could search for bridge:movable=swing and find both working and fixed swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the relevance of such spans.) This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle of least surprise. Good point. I can easily see people correcting bridge=yes to bridge=movable because they see the bridge:movable tag on a span. What if we made bridge=fixed a synonym of bridge=yes? fine for me. bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to bridge=yes and covered=yes. I left it in because of this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html which suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it at this point. I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts. I don't think there are any extant covered movable bridges. Re. aqueducts, in what sense was that covered? A closed pipe? If we retain bridge=covered in addition to covered=yes, I think it should be particular to the classic covered bridge where a truss (usually) has been covered to keep out the weather. not a pipe, a classic viaduct with canal, a roof and arcade style half-open side walls. The purpose was not quite clear - not drinking water and other parts were not covered. Should we have bridge:cover ? As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=, bridge=low_water_crossing, which is somewhat established but a bit awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe flood_prone=yes. The essential quality we're looking to convey is that the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out intact. those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same solution whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with tunnel=culvert and ford=yes flood_prone might be a little better for both in that I think of a ford as having water more or less perennially covering the crossing, whereas a low water bridge, like a road dipping into an arroyo, is only covered by irregular intervals of high water. the flooding can be more or less frequent. In some places that I have seen the flooding was manmade und thus mostly predictable, bellow a dam. The difference I think is how it will be used for routing, so perhaps both are valid alternatives. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:45PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne. I think rather that bridge:structure=humpback I'd prefer bridge:geometry=humpback. At least something that conveys shape meaning. For me structure implies the design element that gives a building, bridge, dam, etc. its strength. In the case of the photo that would be masonry arch for structure. +1. Humpback seems mostly to be defined by the aesthetic effect and the potential effect on vehicles; there seems to be a popular Humpback Bridge on Virginia that's a covered truss with a mild humpback. I'd rather not dilute the more or less coherent nature of bridge:structure=, although better that than bridge=. Although tagging it as some sort of highway hazard or condition is not a bad idea either. I was thinking maybe bridge:architecture would cover both bridge:structure and bridge:geometry but I guess it is too late to change? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess cahoess@gmail.c caho...@gmail.com As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out the critique a bit so I can try to improve things. Some people consider freeform values in bridge tag as a problem and think that bridge tag should have only yes/no values and specific type of bridge should be stored in a separate tag. It is notable as these people maintain Default Style - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 08:24 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: risk_of_grounding=yes ? That is one attribute that can be applied to a humpback bridge, level crossing or even some stretches of road. The other issues with humpback bridges are risk of taking off, and hitting oncoming vehicles due to lack of visibility. Phil (trigpoint) On Aug 10, 2014 5:14 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk ha scritto: I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging just because it is not universally understood Movable in itself could mean many things, lifting, swing or even transporter. +1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an improvement because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still lacks some consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being movable which I'd not set as primary bridge value. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk ha scritto: I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging just because it is not universally understood Movable in itself could mean many things, lifting, swing or even transporter. +1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an improvement because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still lacks some consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being movable which I'd not set as primary bridge value. I would also think that bridge=movable is not needed given bridge:movable. But is it worth the trouble changing it? I am not against it... but enough work around:) Bridge=trestle would be a much clearer candidate to remove from the primary values table.. whoever knows how it got there. What is imho much more important is to decide that the primary bridge values should not be further extended without *very* good reasons and the existing system used as far as possible. Currently http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Values seems suggests that anyone should freely invent his own types (bottom of table). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk ha scritto: I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging just because it is not universally understood Movable in itself could mean many things, lifting, swing or even transporter. +1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an improvement because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still lacks some consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being movable which I'd not set as primary bridge value. I would also think that bridge=movable is not needed given bridge:movable. But is it worth the trouble changing it? I am not against it... but enough work around:) Bridge=trestle would be a much clearer candidate to remove from the primary values table.. whoever knows how it got there. What is imho much more important is to decide that the primary bridge values should not be further extended without *very* good reasons and the existing system used as far as possible. Currently http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Values seems suggests that anyone should freely invent his own types (bottom of table). As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out the critique a bit so I can try to improve things. I don't see how using bridge=movable constitutes dumb-down tagging; all I've done is move the many different possible values to bridge:movable. I think this is an excellent arrangement, because movable bridges seem to stimulate engineering ingenuity: there are many different types, and I do not feel confident that we can build a comprehensive list of them. In practice, we will need to accept occasional user-defined values for types of movable bridges, but we can't show bridge rendering for an open-ended set of values (bridge=*) because many user-defined values indicate the bridge is not functional. Moving them into this subtag seems like an excellent way to balance tagging expressiveness with usability. Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now fixed in place with bridge:movable=* but not bridge=movable. So you could search for bridge:movable=swing and find both working and fixed swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the relevance of such spans.) The table of values for bridge= is something of a hodgepodge, reflecting common uses in taginfo that didn't fit into the subkeys; what's common in taginfo, in turn, basically represents what people built into the renderers and editing tools. Since I was already proposing to replace bridge=suspension with bridge:structure=suspension, I didn't want to go much further in turning existing practice upside-down. Some thoughts: bridge=aqueduct has longstanding usage, but could probably be dispensed with. The fact that the bridge is applied to a canal or waterway tells us it's an aqueduct. (For the same reason, we don't need an explicit tag for footbridges; that's determined by the way crossing it plus restrictions.) The main argument I can think of for retaining it would be drained aqueducts from defunct canals, which there's no *de jure* official way to tag. Any thoughts from frequent waterway/canal mappers? bridge=boardwalk can be dispensed with; Alv pointed out after voting already started that it's redundant to duckboard=yes. bridge=cantilever, trestle, and viaduct form a natural group of some kind. I don't have a single word to easily sum them up, but they all have to do with the way in which multiple spans of the bridge are arranged and supported. Note that as far as I know, in both American and British English, the term viaduct can be applied to both road and railroad bridges; it isn't confined to roads. They can't be parceled into bridge:structure because they conflict with the ability to specify the individual spans (e.g., an arch viaduct), but these would be a good target for moving into a subtag. bridge=viaduct has a lot of existing uses because of renderer support. bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to bridge=yes and covered=yes. I left it in because of this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html which suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: Hi, http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might be that you don't see far enough? But using bridge=humpback to imply a hazard may not be such a good idea, will American tourists be familiar with the dangers of humpback bridges? Instead we could describe the hazards as visibility, bump, dip, and narrow single lane with higher chances of universal usability. We could also use reasonable_max_speed (per vehicle category) or do both. Hence I am now inclined to tag humpback bridges as bridge=yes + bridge:structure=humpback Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On 11 August 2014 17:28, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to float another proposal bridge=pontoon? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Richard Z. wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: Hi, http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might be that you don't see far enough? But using bridge=humpback to imply a hazard may not be such a good idea, will American tourists be familiar with the dangers of humpback bridges? Instead we could describe the hazards as visibility, bump, dip, and narrow single lane with higher chances of universal usability. We could also use reasonable_max_speed (per vehicle category) or do both. Hence I am now inclined to tag humpback bridges as bridge=yes + bridge:structure=humpback Richard The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne. I think rather that bridge:structure=humpback I'd prefer bridge:geometry=humpback. At least something that conveys shape meaning. For me structure implies the design element that gives a building, bridge, dam, etc. its strength. In the case of the photo that would be masonry arch for structure. For what it is worth, in the Southwest of the United States there were, and still remain, the reverse geometry in the form of dips where a road crosses a normally dry water course. Since the is usually only water in them an hour or so a year it used to be deemed too expensive to put in proper bridges or culverts. They are generally signed with a dip warning sign and you can certainly get airborne or bottom out on those too. I wonder if a tagging that specifies a rapid change in grade on a road way might be better than a bridge specific tag. Then one set of tags could be used for both sets of situations. Might make it easier on the data consumers. Maybe highway:elevation_change=yes. -Tod ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Hi, As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out the critique a bit so I can try to improve things. my criticism was limited to the slight redundancy of bridge=movable + bridge:movable One minor issues with the description, Key:bridge:structure says describe the load-bearing architecture of individual bridge spans. This meaning of span may not be well known for folks who are not bridge experts and not native english speakers. Perhaps sections or segments could be added in brackets for explanation. I don't see how using bridge=movable constitutes dumb-down tagging; all I've done is move the many different possible values to bridge:movable. I think this is an excellent arrangement, because movable bridges seem to stimulate engineering ingenuity: there are many different types, and I do not feel confident that we can build a comprehensive list of them. In practice, we will need to accept occasional user-defined values for types of movable bridges, but we can't show bridge rendering for an open-ended set of values (bridge=*) because many user-defined values indicate the bridge is not functional. Moving them into this subtag seems like an excellent way to balance tagging expressiveness with usability. agree. Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now fixed in place with bridge:movable=* but not bridge=movable. So you could search for bridge:movable=swing and find both working and fixed swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the relevance of such spans.) This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle of least surprise. bridge=aqueduct has longstanding usage, but could probably be dispensed with. The fact that the bridge is applied to a canal or waterway tells us it's an aqueduct. (For the same reason, we don't need an explicit tag for footbridges; that's determined by the way crossing it plus restrictions.) The main argument I can think of for retaining it would be drained aqueducts from defunct canals, which there's no *de jure* official way to tag. Any thoughts from frequent waterway/canal mappers? it is probably good to keep that one as I have seen plenty of defunct canals going over aqueducts. bridge=cantilever, trestle, and viaduct form a natural group of some kind. I don't have a single word to easily sum them up, but they all have to do with the way in which multiple spans of the bridge are arranged and supported. Note that as far as I know, in both American and British English, the term viaduct can be applied to both road and railroad bridges; it isn't confined to roads. They can't be parceled into bridge:structure because they conflict with the ability to specify the individual spans (e.g., an arch viaduct), but these would be a good target for moving into a subtag. bridge=viaduct has a lot of existing uses because of renderer support. the trestle is something that doesn't fit into bridge:structure well, but bridge=trestle doesn't describe it terribly well either, so some subtag describing the average width and technical details might be a good idea. bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to bridge=yes and covered=yes. I left it in because of this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html which suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it at this point. I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts. As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=, bridge=low_water_crossing, which is somewhat established but a bit awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe flood_prone=yes. The essential quality we're looking to convey is that the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out intact. those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same solution whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with tunnel=culvert and ford=yes Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 18:28, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com ha scritto: the term viaduct can be applied to both road and railroad bridges; it isn't confined to roads. +1 They can't be parceled into bridge:structure because they conflict with the ability to specify the individual spans (e.g., an arch viaduct), but these would be a good target for moving into a subtag. bridge=viaduct has a lot of existing uses because of renderer support. The wiki says for viaduct A bridge composed of a series of short spans. The spans may be arches, girders supported by piers, etc. We should remove the word short, because this is relative and depends on the scale and design. A famous example is in France: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/m/projects/millau-viaduct/images/gallery/ Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The wiki says for viaduct A bridge composed of a series of short spans. The spans may be arches, girders supported by piers, etc. We should remove the word short, because this is relative and depends on the scale and design. A famous example is in France: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/m/projects/millau-viaduct/images/gallery/ Well, dictionary.com offers a bridge for carrying a road, railroad, etc., over a valley or the like, consisting of a number of short spans, but I agree with you in practice that the spans don't necessarily have to be short, just that there have to be a reasonable number of something. I don't think there's really a hard definition for what a viaduct is; it's a matter of having a certain gestalt. What about A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to its overall length as a definition? Yours, -- Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 01:55, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com ha scritto: A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to its overall length +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne. I think rather that bridge:structure=humpback I'd prefer bridge:geometry=humpback. At least something that conveys shape meaning. For me structure implies the design element that gives a building, bridge, dam, etc. its strength. In the case of the photo that would be masonry arch for structure. +1. Humpback seems mostly to be defined by the aesthetic effect and the potential effect on vehicles; there seems to be a popular Humpback Bridge on Virginia that's a covered truss with a mild humpback. I'd rather not dilute the more or less coherent nature of bridge:structure=, although better that than bridge=. Although tagging it as some sort of highway hazard or condition is not a bad idea either. -- Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Martin, OK, viaduct boldly fixed on-wiki! Also added some explanatory text to Key:bridge:structure, overlapping with Key:bridge, as to what a span is and how to deal with bridges with multiple span types. -- Chris On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 01:55, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com ha scritto: A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to its overall length +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now fixed in place with bridge:movable=* but not bridge=movable. So you could search for bridge:movable=swing and find both working and fixed swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the relevance of such spans.) This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle of least surprise. Good point. I can easily see people correcting bridge=yes to bridge=movable because they see the bridge:movable tag on a span. What if we made bridge=fixed a synonym of bridge=yes? bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to bridge=yes and covered=yes. I left it in because of this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html which suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it at this point. I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts. I don't think there are any extant covered movable bridges. Re. aqueducts, in what sense was that covered? A closed pipe? If we retain bridge=covered in addition to covered=yes, I think it should be particular to the classic covered bridge where a truss (usually) has been covered to keep out the weather. As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=, bridge=low_water_crossing, which is somewhat established but a bit awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe flood_prone=yes. The essential quality we're looking to convey is that the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out intact. those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same solution whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with tunnel=culvert and ford=yes flood_prone might be a little better for both in that I think of a ford as having water more or less perennially covering the crossing, whereas a low water bridge, like a road dipping into an arroyo, is only covered by irregular intervals of high water. Yours, -- Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark covered ways. For example covered bridges. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:04:20PM +0400, Никита wrote: I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? it was at least among the values of the German and French wiki and in the proposed values of the Russian and Ukrainian wikis. bridge=humpback — Bogenbrücke, bei der die Fahrbahn in einem Bogen geschwungen und immer Höher als die seitlichen Rampen ist. (auch moon bridge genannt) Pont dont la partie centrale est plus élevée que les extrémités bridge=humpback Так называемый Горбатый мост. Обычно арочной конструкции. Такие мосты отличаются своей формой: они существенно выгнуты вверх. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/3/3c/Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg/100px-Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg Richard PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark covered ways. For example covered bridges. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. On other hand, bridge=movable have application in routing software (user preferences). 2014-08-10 13:43 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:04:20PM +0400, Никита wrote: I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? it was at least among the values of the German and French wiki and in the proposed values of the Russian and Ukrainian wikis. bridge=humpback — Bogenbrücke, bei der die Fahrbahn in einem Bogen geschwungen und immer Höher als die seitlichen Rampen ist. (auch moon bridge genannt) Pont dont la partie centrale est plus élevée que les extrémités bridge=humpback Так называемый Горбатый мост. Обычно арочной конструкции. Такие мосты отличаются своей формой: они существенно выгнуты вверх. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/3/3c/Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg/100px-Bridge.bourton.750pix.jpg Richard PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark covered ways. For example covered bridges. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin -- Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [1] [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [2] Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin - Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3] Links: -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [2] https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
I will be fine with bridge=yes, traffic_calming=humpback. But again, as Colin Smale said, we will miss unmarked bridges, without signs. barrier=* is not option here, there no block in any form. 2014-08-10 19:52 GMT+04:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1 [1]]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2 [2]] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [1] [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ [2] On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [3] [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [4] Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] Links: -- [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [4] https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Is okay definition, but we must add reference for not-UK users that there specific road sign for this in UK. Mappers should only apply this tag if there risk for some category of drivers and not just any bridge with varying attitude. So be it. 2014-08-10 20:14 GMT+04:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2 http://www.autopath.co.uk/] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Is there a tag for a non-intended, not speed-enforcing hump on a road? This can occurs on a railway crossing, or due to the roots of a vigorous tree. On 10 août 2014 18:24:05 UTC+02:00, Никита acr...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Is okay definition, but we must add reference for not-UK users that there specific road sign for this in UK. Mappers should only apply this tag if there risk for some category of drivers and not just any bridge with varying attitude. So be it. 2014-08-10 20:14 GMT+04:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. --colin On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote: Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*? cu fly Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale: No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in the wiki[1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom]). There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a risk of grounding often seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the many bridges which the average person would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I would suggest something like a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which is why products like [2 http://www.autopath.co.uk/] exist. --colin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define humpiness of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves yve...@gmail.com mailto:yve...@gmail.com: There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto: colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... --colin Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On 10/08/2014 10:04, Никита wrote: I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback? Shorter Oxford has 'a small bridge with a steep ascent and descent'. -- Steve --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. without clear speed limits or hazzard signs it is just a very abstract danger of which plenty are more evil than a humpback bridge but not tagged in any way.. generations of drivers did drive there. We don't tag narrow winding mountain roads with special attributes, nor do we expect routing software to deduce that wisdom from road geometry? Sometimes I wish we would have something like key:reasonable_max_speed but we don't. So either bridge=humpback is a substitute for key:reasonable_max_speed - than we should think about that - or it is more an optical thing which could be handled within bridge:structure? On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:05PM +0400, Никита wrote: Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). very similar danger situation like hazard=dip, some railway crossings and any number of similar situations. Would it be worth to have an abstraction for that? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some are so humpy that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value for routing or end users... that is true, but shouldn't the routing sw be able to evaluate bridge:structure and bridge:movable as well? The intention was to add swinging rope bridges as a value of bridge:structure and those may be relevant for routing as well. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
Exactly my point. In the UK you can be objective by linking it to the presence of the sign, other countries may not use a sign. Having established that such information (this bridge requires you to slow down to avoid being launched) may be useful in certain cases, now we are trying to represent that information in OSM. The reasonable_max_speed would be a start, but if it is accompanied by some indication of WHY the speed is what it is, like reasonable_max_speed:reason=hump_bridge, then everybody could be happy. OSM is essentially a 2D system. Whereas hazards like sharp bends can possibly be derived from 2D information, anything significant in the vertical plane needs all the help it can get, including hump bridges and steep inclines. I'm not sure where you are from Richard, but don't you agree a bridge like this is asking for some special tag? http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg Same applies as far as I'm concerned for dips and steep hills which constitute a hazard. As they can't be derived from 2D geometry, let's find a way of marking them explicitly. There has already been work done on incline=*: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Incline --colin On 2014-08-10 23:28, Richard Z. wrote: On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is clearly a different attribute. without clear speed limits or hazzard signs it is just a very abstract danger of which plenty are more evil than a humpback bridge but not tagged in any way.. generations of drivers did drive there. We don't tag narrow winding mountain roads with special attributes, nor do we expect routing software to deduce that wisdom from road geometry? Sometimes I wish we would have something like key:reasonable_max_speed but we don't. So either bridge=humpback is a substitute for key:reasonable_max_speed - than we should think about that - or it is more an optical thing which could be handled within bridge:structure? On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:05PM +0400, Никита wrote: Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects with purpose of calming traffic. Back to the topic: a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other attribute). very similar danger situation like hazard=dip, some railway crossings and any number of similar situations. Would it be worth to have an abstraction for that? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
