Hi,
I can share more details about this one.
We have used following two Overpass queries to manually check each of bridge
and tunnel names:
Brigde names: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RWR
Tunnel names: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RYB
We could see that all 257 bridges had the name of the street that contains
"bridge" word (so all of these were false positives), but we found and applied
~10 minor fixes here (layer tag was missing, or even there was a bridge polygon
with the actual bridge name, but way had no attributes about it).
Regarding tunnels, we could fix 6 ways, and 17 were false positives. However,
we could see that some users used tunnel:name tag, but other were using
name:tunnel.
I could see, in my country, that all tunnels got names (especially on a
highways/motorways), and some users made a change and added tunnel names into
the name tag. They've done that because "it is nicer if you see the name". We
have to have as unique data as possible, not to adjust because of render.
@Warin61, sounds familiar with landuse/landcover? Render needs to be changed,
and that is the other story.
I'm at your disposal for any further questions.
Thanks,
Nemanja
-Originalna poruka-
Od: cleary
Poslato: petak, 27. mart 2020. 10:06
Za: OpenStreetMap
Tema: [EXTERNAL] Re: [talk-au] Sydney City Tunnels name= vs tunnel:name=
Unless the road has a different name (and I think that would be rare) I agree
that the road name is the tunnel name.
In my experience, signs show the tunnel name without any other road name.
Where there are differences of opinion, I think local knowledge is always to be
preferred.
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, at 1:03 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> There were changes done recently by MS Open Maps team which moved
> name=* to tunnel:name=*.
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82675900&data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477&sdata=loYkgMthjo%2B6RaBDB5AUptpN
> %2FMFIWEMegl6TpfEPgaY%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82676173&data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477&sdata=dRa2uAyAnyQNddGJEKspeJOfob
> NiLH60V1UO9sQpx%2F4%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosmc
> ha.org%2Fchangesets%2F82676226&data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft
> .com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477&sdata=wbVQe2kajNtwnYhOY%2BrXLELB
> iEtE5A7ARH1MoV37CCs%3D&reserved=0
>
> I don't think these have seperate tunnel vs road names unlike some
> bridges which do, and in many cases the road name is considered to be
> the tunnel name.
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on if we should tag name=* and tunnel:name=*
> as the same, omit name= and just add tunnel:name=*?
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au&data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%4
> 0microsoft.com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91
> ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477&sdata=pNLPXOYI%2B6NphF
> MWRtaoDOz10nXKacfqNSixhgJNZgc%3D&reserved=0
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au&data=02%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Ca3066fb7cc0c4084c67e08d7d22e69d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637208969101872477&sdata=pNLPXOYI%2B6NphFMWRtaoDOz10nXKacfqNSixhgJNZgc%3D&reserved=0
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
