Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

Pieren  wrote:

> t seems that culvert=yes is ambiguous. It can be a ford or applied on the
> road.
> I'm also in favour to replace culvert=yes by tunnel=culvert, bridge=culvert
> or ford=culvert
> It has also the advantage of simplifying the tag management in applications
> (can just handle tunnel=* or bridge=* or ford=*).

I sounds like a good idea and could be extend later with other kind of
"tunnel". For "bridge" and "ford" i don"t really enderstand the concept
; but i'm not (also) natural english speaker...

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Pieren  gmail.com> writes:

> 
> It seems that culvert=yes is ambiguous. It can be a ford or applied on the
road. I'm also in favour to replace culvert=yes by tunnel=culvert,
bridge=culvert or ford=culvertIt has also the advantage of simplifying the tag
management in applications (can just handle tunnel=* or bridge=* or ford=*).
> Pieren

And it can also be considered how ofter culvert is needed.  Normally, if a 
ditchcrosses a way it does it through a culvert, at least here in Finland,
and everybody knows it without splitting the waterway and adding culverts 
or layer definitions etc. But for sure there are culverts which are worth 
having their own tags.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/27 Pieren :
> My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the
> bridge/ford).


+1, fine for me. Tag it on the waterway-way. If there is a bridge over
it, or a ford etc., tag this on the road as usual.


> At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which
> do not really care about the difference between tunnel=yes and culvert=yes
> or pipe=yes or sewer=yes but could deal with tunnel=* (if we recommand
> tunnel=yes/culvert/pipe/sewer)


yes, but they might have to be careful about culvert=no

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[edodd]

>
> ford=culvert is even more insane. There is either a ford or a culvert.
> It's
> physically impossible to be both at the same time.
>

I said "like a ford" in the first place. To me the ford crosses a natural
waterway, and the culvert is not a natural waterway.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cartinus  wrote:

>
> The seventy people who used the tag did not have a problem with
> understanding
> what they did.
>
> bridge=culvert is nonsense: A culvert is not a bridge.
>
>
Again, I'm not a native english speaker but It seems that "culvert" is also
used to designate a bridge. Some quick searches on internet:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Culvert_2_%28PSF%29.png
http://www.rommesmo.com/steeltruss.htm

or tunnels:
http://www.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/culvert.htm

You always claim the "culver=yes" has been used by 70 people. But we also
have hundreds of dozen "tunnel=yes" on waterways which are probably
culverts.
My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the
bridge/ford). At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which
do not really care about the difference between tunnel=yes and culvert=yes
or pipe=yes or sewer=yes but could deal with tunnel=* (if we recommand
tunnel=yes/culvert/pipe/sewer)

Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Friday 27 August 2010 12:50:39 Pieren wrote:
> I'm forwarding the discussion on the next mailing list.
>
> is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
> "tunney=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert")  instead of the
> ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?

It seems it is only ambivalent to the four or so people who make the tagging 
mailing list unreadable. I haven't seen them actually use the tag.

The seventy people who used the tag did not have a problem with understanding 
what they did.

bridge=culvert is nonsense: A culvert is not a bridge.

ford=culvert is even more insane. There is either a ford or a culvert. It's 
physically impossible to be both at the same time.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course this can also be an advantage and be solved by subtagging.
>
>
I'm forwarding the discussion on the next mailing list.

is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
"tunney=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert")  instead of the
ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?

Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/26 Pieren :
> Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
> these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
> the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
> technical vocabular ?


There is a good reason that specialists use specialist language: it is
precise. If you could express the same diversity with common language
terms there would be no need for special terms.

Therefore I welcome the use of precise terms. You will generally have
to look things up somewhere (given that this is not done by your
editor, in which case it doesn't matter what the tag is), so imho
there is no difference.

For the specific case of the culvert it might still be imprecise ;-),
as it doesn't differentiate between an "inverted siphon" [1] and a
"sewer pipe" [2].

I'm not sure if I used the exact English terms, to understand the
difference please look at the first images here:
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCker
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durchlass

Of course this can also be an advantage and be solved by subtagging.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
> So tunnel=culvert :)


I liked the definition given here that a tunnel would be bigger and
accessible for humans why a culvert would be smaller and just a kind
of tube.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Nathan Edgars II]

Liz-11 wrote:
> 
> to complicate matters, a culvert may cut through a road in rural
> australia, making a small ford
> 
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A culvert is a (usually) concrete
structure, topologically a cylinder, that one way (usually water) goes
through and the other goes over.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5468842.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

It seems that culvert=yes is ambiguous. It can be a ford or applied on the
road.
I'm also in favour to replace culvert=yes by tunnel=culvert, bridge=culvert
or ford=culvert
It has also the advantage of simplifying the tag management in applications
(can just handle tunnel=* or bridge=* or ford=*).

Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[edodd]

> On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>>
>> The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge,
>> physically
>> equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in
>> the US
>> National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public
>> roads.
>> They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
>> access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.
>
> There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list
> some time back, although from memory it was more about what
> constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho
> anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person
> to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert.
>

to complicate matters, a culvert may cut through a road in rural
australia, making a small ford


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[David Fawcett]

+1

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>  Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that
>  a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
>
> I understand it to be a passage under a road that isn't big enough for a
> vehicle - maybe a 0.5m pipe for water, or maybe just big enough for some
> animals, but a human going through a culvert would be abnormal.
>
>  Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
>  these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
>  the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
>  technical vocabular ?
>
> In my opinion, one of the broken things about OSM is the insistence on
> making up names and not adopting existing professional terminology.
> Coming up with names is often about a taxonomy and that requires a fair
> bit of thought.  When a relevant professional community has done this,
> we should just use their definitions.  That doesn't mean we can't give
> readable explanations.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

That is, indeed, a highly detailed map, but since it doesn't show elevation 
contours (or at least not any visible at maximum zoom from my phone's browser), 
it would not be classified as a topographical map.  By definition, a 
topographical map shows the three-dimensional topography of an area.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl
Date  :Thu Aug 26 17:40:42 America/Chicago 2010


On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:45:58 John F. Eldredge wrote:
> As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map

Really?

<http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/?zoom=14&lat=51.94058&lon=5.00546&layers=B00>

--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Greg Troxel]

  Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that
  a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

I understand it to be a passage under a road that isn't big enough for a
vehicle - maybe a 0.5m pipe for water, or maybe just big enough for some
animals, but a human going through a culvert would be abnormal.

  Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
  these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
  the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
  technical vocabular ?

In my opinion, one of the broken things about OSM is the insistence on
making up names and not adopting existing professional terminology.
Coming up with names is often about a taxonomy and that requires a fair
bit of thought.  When a relevant professional community has done this,
we should just use their definitions.  That doesn't mean we can't give
readable explanations.



pgpKxZEgLHV8Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:24 PM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>>
>> The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
>> equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
>> National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
>> They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
>> access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.
>
> There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list
> some time back, although from memory it was more about what
> constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho
> anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person
> to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert.

So tunnel=culvert :)
Here's an example of what I'd call a farm access culvert:
http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&layer=c&cbll=28.203143,-81.694469&panoid=m0xmwF1Hx8Ct09dXPzcRRQ&cbp=12,193.6,,0,2.84&ll=28.203453,-81.694529&spn=0.003981,0.0103&z=18

The line between bridges and tunnels is not always clear, so you're
not going to have well-defined bounds for what a culvert is.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John Smith]

On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
> The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
> equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
> National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
> They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
> access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.

There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list
some time back, although from memory it was more about what
constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho
anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person
to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Nathan Edgars II]

The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm
access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land.

I think culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the feature on top or
underneath? It may be best to use bridge=culvert and tunnel=culvert instead
(the former saying that it's not a true bridge; the latter equivalent to
tunnel=yes).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5467745.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:45:58 John F. Eldredge wrote:
> As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map

Really?



-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:30:11 Pieren wrote:
> Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the
> waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it.

70 different authors worldwide.

There were 4 places worldwide where culvert=yes was used on the same way as a 
highway tag. I fixed the one in the Netherlands.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[SomeoneElse]

 On 26/08/2010 19:29, John F. Eldredge wrote:

The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is 
generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to walk through, if not 
larger.


As has already been said, it's also widespread in British English too - 
although (at least in some places) it doesn't always imply "covered".  
For example, someone might say "this stream has been culverted" to refer 
to a stream that has been forced to run through an artificial concrete 
canyon with no roof on it


There's an example here:
http://www.sepa.org.uk/planning/idoc.ashx?docid=77d6eb29-bede-474f-9258-1fdc14e977f5&version=-1
(sorry for the PDF)

that talks specifically about "enclosed culverting".  I've tended to use 
"tunnel=yes" for a piped waterway or one in a boxed culvert, but would 
be the first to admit that that's stretching "tunnel" way beyond its 
former use.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

Well, the culvert is used where the waterway passes under the roadway.  Also, 
many culverts are located where there is running water only during, or shortly 
after, a rainstorm, so the ditch or low spot they are intended to drain may 
well not be marked on the map.  As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a 
full topographical map, so culverts are likely to be mapped as landmarks for 
someone using the road or path.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:pier...@gmail.com
Date  :Thu Aug 26 15:30:11 America/Chicago 2010


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Cartinus mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl> > wrote:
 Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts.
 IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. 


I opposed because I though that it was a technical term only known by civil 
engineers. But go ahead with culvert and sewers, we will see how many 
applications will use them.
   
Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597
 culvert=yes tags in the database.



Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the waterway 
and not on the road and how many different contributors used it. 
 
Pieren
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Cartinus  wrote:

> Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts.
> IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too.
>

I opposed because I though that it was a technical term only known by civil
engineers. But go ahead with culvert and sewers, we will see how many
applications will use them.


>
> Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597
> culvert=yes tags in the database.
>
>
Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the
waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it.

Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 26 August 2010 19:52:02 Pieren wrote:
> Some people decided recently 

Those some people are the Dutch who are active on the OSM forum.

As you might know the Netherlands is a very wet country. So we have many 
culverts in the country. Not surprisingly the Dutch word for such a water 
carrying pipe below the road is commonly known by average Dutch people and 
not just Dutch civil engineers. This word is "duiker". Plugging this into 
Google translate [1].

AFAIK how to tag a "duiker" was first discussed on the Dutch mailinglist over 
a year ago. The conclusion was that it had to be something with the word 
culvert.

Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts. 
IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. Afterwards Andy seems to 
have added culvert to this wiki page [2].

Today there was discussion on the Dutch forum about "duikers". Then one of the 
participants made what was hidden on the Water_features page more visible by 
giving it its own page. Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597 
culvert=yes tags in the database.

[1] 
[2] 

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

Sewer tunnel would be a description of the largest sewers, containing the 
merged outflow of many smaller sewers.  As you said, frequently these are 
simply referred to as sewers.  I remember watching one large storm-sewer tunnel 
being built, years ago; it was about seven meters in diameter.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz
Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:42:50 America/Chicago 2010


This is how I understand "culvert", from New Zealand. Although I've rarely 
heard "sewer tunnel", it's just "sewer".

Tim.


On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com> > wrote:
 The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is 
generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to 
walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is 
not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as "sewer 
tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised 
area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large enough to walk 
through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a short distance, such 
as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate the size of a 
passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway.
 
 ---Original Email---
 Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
 From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net <mailto:rich...@systemed.net> 
 Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010
 



 
 
 Pieren wrote:
 > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
 > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
 
 It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
 because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
 
 cheers
 Richard
 --
 View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
 Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com <mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com> 
 "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
 


___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Toby Murray]

Yeah, being in tornado alley the word "culvert" is frequently used in
tornado safety instructions as a last resort shelter if you encounter
a tornado on the open road. For example:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=safety-severe-roadsafety

Toby


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tim McNamara
 wrote:
> This is how I understand "culvert", from New Zealand. Although I've rarely
> heard "sewer tunnel", it's just "sewer".
>
> Tim.
>
> On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
>>
>> The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel"
>> is generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a
>> person to walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that
>> a tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such
>> as "sewer tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or
>> other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large
>> enough to walk through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a
>> short distance, such as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate
>> the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the
>> passageway.
>>
>> ---Original Email---
>> Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>> From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net
>> Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010
>>
>>
>>
>> Pieren wrote:
>> > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
>> > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
>>
>> It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
>> because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
>> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>> --
>> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
>> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
>> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Tim McNamara]

This is how I understand "culvert", from New Zealand. Although I've rarely
heard "sewer tunnel", it's just "sewer".

Tim.

On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge  wrote:

> The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is
> generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person
> to walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that a
> tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as
> "sewer tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or
> other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large
> enough to walk through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a
> short distance, such as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate
> the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the
> passageway.
>
> ---Original Email---
> Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
> From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net
> Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010
>
>
>
> Pieren wrote:
> > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
> > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
>
> It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
> because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[John F. Eldredge]

The term "culvert" is also standard usage in American English.  "Tunnel" is 
generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to 
walk through, if not larger.  Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is 
not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as "sewer 
tunnel".  A "culvert" refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised 
area, meant to carry surface-water runoff.  Some are large enough to walk 
through, but most aren't.  Usually they extend only for a short distance, such 
as the width of a roadway.  "Covered" does not indicate the size of a 
passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
>From  :mailto:rich...@systemed.net
Date  :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010



Pieren wrote:
> Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ?
> Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? 
> Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? 
> Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?

It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466616.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

[Pieren]

Some people decided recently and alone to introduce the tag "culvert=yes" on
the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:culvert

Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that
a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use
these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take
the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such
technical vocabular ?
Question 3 : between tunnel, covered and culvert, how many additionnal tags
are we going to create to designate the exact same thing : "the water is
under the road" ?

Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk