Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
> Relation should be IN ADDITION to identifying elements that make it up, not as > a replacement which is what is being proposed. > Areas provide physical with details that are missing from routes, but also do > not replace the basic elements such as 'railway and footway' that form part of > the bridge. I also understand the relations as additions. The question is more about additions to what. As addition to the tags like: way1: highway=primary, bridge=yes, onway=true way2: highway=footway, bridge=yes relation1: type=multiway, way1=middle, way2=left Or as addition to the tagging scheme: way1: highway=primary, oneway=true way2: highway=footway relation1: type=multiway, bridge=yes, way1=middle, way2=left Regards, Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: >>> Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk >>> page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels >> A proper definition of what a relation is may be a good start ;( > >> I don't see why a single mapped element should be defined as a 'relation'. A >> relation would be used to join a number of mapped elements making up a >> bridge, >> as where several ways make up the one 'bridge' such as some complex motorway >> junctions. Adding AREAS to the equation simply reopens the debate whether >> EVERY way should properly define it's area. i.e. roads carriageways making up >> the bridge should have widths as well. >> And then add multi-deck bridges and roadways which are single ways on top of >> one another ;) > > This multi-deck bridges would be a good example, why having relations > for bridges. > An other example are if you have a highway and a cycleway on the same > bridge. Or a railway and a footway. Relation should be IN ADDITION to identifying elements that make it up, not as a replacement which is what is being proposed. Areas provide physical with details that are missing from routes, but also do not replace the basic elements such as 'railway and footway' that form part of the bridge. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
>> Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk >> page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels > > A proper definition of what a relation is may be a good start ;( > I don't see why a single mapped element should be defined as a 'relation'. A > relation would be used to join a number of mapped elements making up a bridge, > as where several ways make up the one 'bridge' such as some complex motorway > junctions. Adding AREAS to the equation simply reopens the debate whether > EVERY way should properly define it's area. i.e. roads carriageways making up > the bridge should have widths as well. > And then add multi-deck bridges and roadways which are single ways on top of > one another ;) This multi-deck bridges would be a good example, why having relations for bridges. An other example are if you have a highway and a cycleway on the same bridge. Or a railway and a footway. Regards, Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: >>> Does someone care about this proposal? >> Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. > > Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk > page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels A proper definition of what a relation is may be a good start ;( I don't see why a single mapped element should be defined as a 'relation'. A relation would be used to join a number of mapped elements making up a bridge, as where several ways make up the one 'bridge' such as some complex motorway junctions. Adding AREAS to the equation simply reopens the debate whether EVERY way should properly define it's area. i.e. roads carriageways making up the bridge should have widths as well. And then add multi-deck bridges and roadways which are single ways on top of one another ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
>> Does someone care about this proposal? > > Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. Maybe you should wait some days. There is some activity on the talk page cause of the Bridge_and_Tunnels Relations proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels Regards Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
Raphael Studer wrote: > Does someone care about this proposal? Yes, sorry, I'll move it to a vote RSN. Although I'd kind of given up on the whole voting system, given the antipathy towards it (and, in fact, towards any form of authority) in certain quarters. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
At 11:11 AM 13/05/2008, Raphael Studer wrote: >> I've formally written up my Bridge proposal, as mentioned here a week or >> two ago: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge > >Does someone care about this proposal? > >Regards >Rapahel It seems so: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Proposed_features/Bridge ... or is this a very polite request that the proposer might proceed to voting? ;-) Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
> I've formally written up my Bridge proposal, as mentioned here a week or > two ago: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge Does someone care about this proposal? Regards Rapahel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Bridge proposal
I've formally written up my Bridge proposal, as mentioned here a week or two ago: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bridge In summary, I propose replacing the various bridge and bridge-related tags: bridge=yes waterway=aqueduct highway=viaduct railway=viaduct with a single "bridge=" tag: bridge=yes bridge=aqueduct bridge=viaduct bridge=swing bridge=... In other words, make all bridge-like structures values of the bridge tag. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
