Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 13:54, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Yes...
>
>
> https://vicroadsopendata-vicroadsmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ef496e07eae049a3bb94351bc496dd6a_0/explore?location=-36.518496%2C145.313781%2C7.55
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
>

Sorry, Andrew, but apparently not?

I asked that question on Discord just the other day about somewhere else
with that CC & got told No Way! :-(

https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/763192797775265864/1076347259324739635
& a couple following if you're on it?

I can copy the contents if needed?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Yes...

https://vicroadsopendata-vicroadsmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ef496e07eae049a3bb94351bc496dd6a_0/explore?location=-36.518496%2C145.313781%2C7.55

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

--Andrew


On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 09:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
>> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>>
>>
> Sorry to be awkward, but do we have permission to use that data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Ben Ritter]

Hi All,

I don't have any skin in the game of waterways or infrastructure ids, but I
would like to offer my perspective as a software developer working with
road networks in osm2streets .

First of all, these proprietary S*tructure Numbers* are not a perfect fit
for inclusion in OSM, unless they are actually marked on the culverts
themselves in the real world. This is because of the principle of
Verifiability . That
being said, I find it hard to discourage any local community from
maintaining their own clear and consistent tags if it doesn't increase the
burden on anyone else.

The inconvenient fact here is that `highway=*` ways describe the navigable
road surfaces with a focus on routability rather than describing the road
as a whole. For instance, when there is a physical median dividing a road,
the road is split into two ways because from a routability perspective, the
two sides of the road are unrelated. The decision to connect a `highway`
feature to some other feature is made based on the routing connectivity
between them, even at the expense of spatial correctness. (This is
certainly a pain in the arse for a lot of use-cases, but it's the
convention that exists, and in my opinion is a reasonable compromise given
the competing requirements.) Another example: traffic lights exist as nodes
on the `highway` because they are relevant to someone navigating along that
portion of roadway. Same with `surface`, `maxweight` and `maxwidth` tags,
etc.

So, the road infrastructure is represented not just by the `highway`, but
by other OSM features too, like seperate `kerb=*` nodes and ways,
`man_made=bridge` areas, etc.

In my view, it would not be appropriate to tag properties of a culvert on a
`highway=*` way. A node on the way would not be appropriate either, because
the culvert is not a feature of the driving surface. Also, such a node
would ideally be placed right where the culvert crosses the road, but
because the culvert and the road should not be connected (due to the
routing connectivity constraint), the approach would be very fiddly and
error prone.

With all that in mind, I think an appropriately namespaced `ref` tag on the
`tunnel=culvert` itself would be appropriate (assuming proper
licensing and importing
procedures ).

I like working within the `ref:AU` namespace to signify to the global
community that the Australian community has defined the tag. After that, I
agree that it should be kept simple with an identifier of the
issuing authority. That identifier shouldn't have more colons in it,
because they signify another level of the tag hierarchy. Given that the DoT
has just renamed to "Department of Transport and Planning"
 I would propose

ref:AU:vic_dtp=SN1234


I share your disappointment with the difficulty in working with features
associated with roads like this. To me, this feels like the street address
case. "Street" is in the name, but the addresses aren't directly connected
with the road features. This is why I am contributing to osm2streets,
because I want a simple way to work with data at a "road" level, instead of
the "OSM feature" level.

Though we are not there yet, associating things like culverts with the
roads they cross - in the way you desire - is in scope for osm2streets. I
would love to discuss this use case over on the github forum
. Or hear of any
good solutions that people out there are using!

Cheers,
Ben

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 at 08:03, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:21 PM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> > For the structure number, I like the look of...
> >
> > ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345
> >
>
> Does it really need to be that complicated? How many different systems
> of culvert references are there in Victoria. I'd be happy with just
> ref=* on the culvert.
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Davidson]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:21 PM Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> For the structure number, I like the look of...
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345
>

Does it really need to be that complicated? How many different systems
of culvert references are there in Victoria. I'd be happy with just
ref=* on the culvert.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[stevea]

On Feb 9, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian 
> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
> 
> Sorry to be awkward, but do we have permission to use that data? 

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.  (No awkwardness felt from here).

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 12:31, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>
>
Sorry to be awkward, but do we have permission to use that data?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Phil and Everyone else,

For the structure number, I like the look of...

ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345

Questions...

   1. All caps, for the VIC:DOT:SN suffix?
   2. Sure there is no "GOV" in there?   ref:AU:*GOV:*VIC:DOT:SN  = ???
   3. If we had to tag both the structure number and the "structure type"
   would this change the convention? Giving something like
  1. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:N=SN12345
  2. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:TYPE=Culvert

Many thanks, as always!
AH


On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 13:49, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> One way would be by using a ref key
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref
>
>
>
> Maybe even something as long as
>
>
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=2252 or maybe
>
>
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT=SN2252
>
>
>
> On the culvert makes sense to me but given you seem to want it related to
> the way I will let others chime in on whether it could go on a node on the
> way (similar to the signs we have recently been discussing). Its not
> something I remember having seen in the past (but I have never looked for
> any such points)
>
>
>
> Either way it would be beneficial to at least describe this in the Ozzie
> roads wiki when its settled, maybe under an infrastructure heading.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads
>
>
>
> Cheers - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Hughes 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 9 February 2023 1:25 PM
> *To:* Talk Au 
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think
> it reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need to
> try my best to get resolution on this.
>
>
>
> To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far more
> clarity than I once did in 2020.
>
>
>
> Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure (they
> are even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others
> consider them to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are
> in the context of those who consider them as road infrastructure. This
> isn't a question around water courses that tag the culvert because that
> already has a (good) tagging convention.
>
>
>
> Context:
>
> Given we have more than 50K culvert's
>
> And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or
> independently a watercourse)
>
> And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
> Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
>
>
>
> Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just
> geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref
> identification?
>
>
>
> Here's a real world example:
>
>
>
> The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...
>
>
>
>
> http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.29174897%2C-37.098997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D
>
>
>
> The location in OSM is...
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175
> or the closest node
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190>
>
>
>
> I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh slate.
>
>
>
> Thanks Everyone,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
> conclusion
> https://wiki

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

One way would be by using a ref key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref

 

Maybe even something as long as 

 

ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=2252 or maybe

 

ref:AU:VIC:DOT=SN2252

 

On the culvert makes sense to me but given you seem to want it related to the 
way I will let others chime in on whether it could go on a node on the way 
(similar to the signs we have recently been discussing). Its not something I 
remember having seen in the past (but I have never looked for any such points)

 

Either way it would be beneficial to at least describe this in the Ozzie roads 
wiki when its settled, maybe under an infrastructure heading. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Andrew Hughes  
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2023 1:25 PM
To: Talk Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

 

Hi All,

 

I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think it 
reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need to try my 
best to get resolution on this.

 

To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far more 
clarity than I once did in 2020.

 

Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure (they are 
even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others consider them 
to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are in the context of 
those who consider them as road infrastructure. This isn't a question around 
water courses that tag the culvert because that already has a (good) tagging 
convention.

 

Context:

Given we have more than 50K culvert's

And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or 
independently a watercourse)

And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian Dept 
of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)

 

Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just 
geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref 
identification?

 

Here's a real world example:

 

The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...

 

http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.29174897%2C-37.098997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D

 

The location in OSM is...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175 or 
the closest node 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190 

 

I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh slate.

 

Thanks Everyone,

Andrew 

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

 

 

 

Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> :

On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:

 

 

 

Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> :

On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:

 

 

 

Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> :

On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a conclusion 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

 

>From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. 
>river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water 
>traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios. 
>However, it doesn't help with road usage.

 

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.

 

Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient? 

That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node 
vertically separated

objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under road 
on a viaduct.

 

OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at a singular 
shared node. 

In this case you can transition/move between this features.

Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert indication 
separate from the waterway culvert indication?

No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.

 

And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM data,

there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of culverts

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think
it reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need to
try my best to get resolution on this.

To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far more
clarity than I once did in 2020.

Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure (they
are even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others
consider them to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are
in the context of those who consider them as road infrastructure. This
isn't a question around water courses that tag the culvert because that
already has a (good) tagging convention.

Context:

Given we have more than 50K culvert's
And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or
independently a watercourse)
And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)


Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just
geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref
identification?

Here's a real world example:

The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...

http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.29174897%2C-37.098997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D


The location in OSM is...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175
or the closest node
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190



I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh slate.

Thanks Everyone,
Andrew





On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
> conclusion
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>
> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e.
> river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water
> traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios.
> However, it doesn't help with road usage.
>
> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
>
>
> Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient?
>
> That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node
> vertically separated
> objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under
> road on a viaduct.
>
>
> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at a
> singular shared node.
>
> In this case you can transition/move between this features.
>
> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert indication
> separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>
> No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.
>
> And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM
> data,
> there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of
> culverts.
>
>
> And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as it crosses
> a culvert...
>
> maxweight maxwidth tags on road are well known solution for that
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au  wrote:
>>>



 Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by  61sundow...@gmail.com :

> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that  
>> hasn't reached a conclusion >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>
>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the  
>> water course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as  
>> tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water  
>> traverses man made structures and I can see it helping  
>> many scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road  
>> usage.
>>
>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the  road 
>> infrastructure.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Would a node that connects both road and water way be  
> sufficient? 
>
>
 That would break current tagging methods that do notmerge in 
 one node vertically separated
 objects like culvert pipe under road or river underbridge or 
 road under road on a viaduct.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to  footways at 
>>> a singular shared node. 
>>>
>>>
>> In this case you can transition/move between this features.
>>
>>>
>>> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert  
>>> indication separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>>>
>>>
>> No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anythingon a 
>> road.
>>
>> And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they canprocess 
>> OSM data,
>> there is no need at all to tag it manually for over onemillion of 
>> culverts.
>>
>
>
>
>
> And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as  it 
> crosses a culvert...
>
>
maxweight maxwidth tags on road are well known solution for that

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Warin]

On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:




Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:




Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com
:

On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't
reached a conclusion

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water
course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's
great as it models where water traverses man made
structures and I can see it helping many scenarios. However,
it doesn't help with road usage.

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road
infrastructure.



Would a node that connects both road and water way be
sufficient?

That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one
node vertically separated
objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or
road under road on a viaduct.



OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at
a singular shared node.

In this case you can transition/move between this features.

Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert
indication separate from the waterway culvert indication?

No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.

And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM 
data,
there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of 
culverts.



And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as it 
crosses a culvert...




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>
 This subject has a long-running chequered past that  hasn't 
 reached a conclusion  
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

 From my understanding, the convention is to tag the  water 
 course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert.  It's 
 great as it models where water traverses man made  structures 
 and I can see it helping many scenarios.  However, it doesn't 
 help with road usage.

 We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road  
 infrastructure.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would a node that connects both road and water way be  sufficient? 
>>>
>>>
>> That would break current tagging methods that do not merge inone 
>> node vertically separated
>> objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge orroad 
>> under road on a viaduct.
>>
>
>
>
>
> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways  at a 
> singular shared node. 
>
>
In this case you can transition/move between this features.

>
> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert  indication 
> separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>
>
No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.

And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM data,
there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of culverts.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:




Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't
reached a conclusion

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course
(i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it
models where water traverses man made structures and I can see it
helping many scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage.

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.



Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient?

That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node 
vertically separated
objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road 
under road on a viaduct.



OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at a 
singular shared node.



Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert indication 
separate from the waterway culvert indication? Lot of work for a change 
to tagging methods...


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't  reached 
>> a conclusion >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>
>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water  course 
>> (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great  as it 
>> models where water traverses man made structures and I  can see it 
>> helping many scenarios. However, it doesn't help  with road usage.
>>
>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road  infrastructure.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient? 
>
>
That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node 
vertically separated
objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under road 
on a viaduct.

node shared by waterway and road is for fords
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Warin]

On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:

Hi All,

Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping 
out Culverts on (way/highway) roads.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert

The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road 
usage and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much 
like a bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have 
conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during 
natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). /Note - tagging should be 
on the way, not on a node./


Yet to see any signs on any culvert in Australia with weight & width 
limits.


May culverts are simple pipes under the road, just a little wider than 
the road. It would be difficult to map these with any accuracy for the 
length of the pipe.





This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a 
conclusion 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section


From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. 
river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where 
water traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many 
scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage.


We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.



Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient?



We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's 
important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.


If imagery is used, how do you distinguish between a small bridge and a 
large culvert?


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Warin]

On 27/11/20 11:40 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:19, Andrew Hughes > wrote:



Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?


Sorry, got to say that I personally can't see anything "wrong" with 
either of them?


  * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
  o _*Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is
missing?*_

It looks like a defined bridge passing over a (probably) storm-water 
drain. The road is tagged as a bridge at layer=1. The drain could be 
tagged as -1 but I believe that's not strictly necessary.



I take the view that layer=0 is 'ground level' Most natural water 
courses are, in my view, all layer=0. It is unusual the have water under 
'ground level' rise to the surface ... some do exist though, but not 
usually for 'drains'.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 04:21 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and 
>> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>>
>
> Currently, at least, tunnel=culvert doesn't render on the road, it only shows 
> as a faint dotted line for the stream / drain passing under the road, so 
> won't be very visible (at least that's how they show in OSMand+ - other nav 
> programs may be different?)
>
And OSM is open data, so if someone is interested in culverts they can make 
their own rendering!


>> Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
>> structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater 
>> for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically 
>> those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not 
>> have a spatial component and would compliment each other nicely.
>>
>
> That's likely to be the biggest problem. Where are you getting the weight 
> restriction limits? I've driven over quite a few bridges & culverts, in both 
> built-up & country areas, & very few of them have weight limits posted. If 
> you're accessing external (Govt?) data-bases that have these details listed, 
> do we have permission to use their data in OSM?
>
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines for more info


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 03:24 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks everyone for your feedback.
>
> We would like the culvert to be an  'isolated' segment of road for a number 
> of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however 
> anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or 
> heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the 
> culvert is identifiable
>
It is already identifiable as location where line representing culvert and line 
representing road crosses (skipping cases of road tagged as bridge or tunnel 
would
be needed to avoid rare false positive).

This requires some processing, but it is far less work overall than mapping 
this manually.

In general mapping manually something that may be handled automatically in data 
processing
is a very bad idea.

> Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a 
> point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways.
>
I once or twice split natural=water area of river (or waterway=riverbank area) 
and tagged it with
covered=yes. Something similar for culverts may be also done.

>  This will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater 
> accuracy & application.
>
Can you give examples of well mapped road and waterway geometry where tagging
tunnel=culvert on waterway is not sufficient and tagging culvert on road is 
needed to
achieve this "far greater accuracy & application"?
> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and 
> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>
This should be handled well by existing tagging.

> Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
> structure/identification numbers.
>
Adding reference numbers to a culvert is possible already.

>  Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is 
> possible.
>
What kind of data would require tagging culvert also on road?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

It seems to me there are a few issues here.

 

Culverts are already in OSM so its relatively easy to extract them and use them 
in conjunction with other spatial software. If they are well located spatially 
then they will intersect the road. There is no real need for them to have an 
‘attachment’ to the road. There are also no doubt cases where there are 
culverts with no attachment to a creek or river (ie crossing into a property 
over a ‘drain’)

 

The second is how they are rendered. The beauty of OSM is that should someone 
want to make a specific map, app or routing software based on OSM, say for 
heavy vehicles, then they are free to render the culverts in many ways 
depending on the attributes that are attached to them. Indeed, I would love to 
see an “Emergency Services” render of OSM features that is great for 
firefighters/Ambulance etc that specifically highlights fire trails, water 
sources, hydrants, hospitals, ‘places of last resort’ etc.

 

http://openfiremap.org/ - zoom in to see hydrants/stations etc

 

Thirdly, is how they can be ‘matched’ to other systems. The ‘ref‘ key is often 
used for this (metro/transport stops etc) so that may go partway to a solution 
for you. Others can probably comment more on how that has been achieved in the 
past. You may also consider if other attributes would be good to add to the 
tunnel=culvert tags.

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4903105785/history

 

Hope this helps you in getting more useful data into OSM.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Hughes  
Sent: Monday, 30 November 2020 1:25 PM
To: o...@97k.com
Cc: OpenStreetMap 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

 

Hi All,

 

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

 

We would like the culvert to be an  'isolated' segment of road for a number of 
reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however anything 
that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or heavy freight 
are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the culvert is 
identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road because it's not 
signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other culverts. This is exactly 
the same as why a waterway would be isolated and tagged with the culvert also - 
so that its location can be established. Additionally, culverts can be quite 
wide (depending on the water body) so a point/node is not an accurate 
representation - they should be ways. This will also allow spatial 
relationships to be used with far greater accuracy & application.

 

Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and that 
the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.

 

Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater for 
both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically those 
in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not have a 
spatial component and would compliment each other nicely.

 

We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would greatly 
assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into bushfires 
last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing, being inaccessible 
or not within in a national context. Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would 
be a great way to show what is possible.

 

 

I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see culverts 
mapped this way.

 

Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way?

 

Kind regards,

--Andrew

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:12, cleary mailto:o...@97k.com> > 
wrote:

Thanks for that info.


On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only 
> where signposted.
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary mailto:o...@97k.com> > 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is 
> > a separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways 
> > and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, 
> > it should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every 
> > place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Hi Andrew

Thanks for that explanation!

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 12:27, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way?
>

No, not really that I can see!, but ...

anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or
> heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the
> culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road
> because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other
> culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and
> tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established.
> Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a
> point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This
> will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy
> & application.
>
> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and
> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>

Currently, at least, tunnel=culvert doesn't render on the road, it only
shows as a faint dotted line for the stream / drain passing under the road,
so won't be very visible (at least that's how they show in OSMand+ - other
nav programs may be different?)

Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal
> structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater
> for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems -
> typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external'
> systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other
> nicely.
>

That's likely to be the biggest problem. Where are you getting the weight
restriction limits? I've driven over quite a few bridges & culverts, in
both built-up & country areas, & very few of them have weight limits
posted. If you're accessing external (Govt?) data-bases that have these
details listed, do we have permission to use their data in OSM?

Wouldn't the thickness of the road surface also need to be taken into
account with these calculations? eg there's a culvert here with 10cm of
gravel over it, but just over there the same size culvert is 5m down under
hard-packed earth & a bitumen roadway. I would think that the only way of
establishing something like that would be personal inspection? (unless it's
also listed in a data-base?)

We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would
> greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into
> bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing,
> being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data
> into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible.
>

I certainly can't argue with you there! Location details that were being
passed to the public were shockingly inadequate, & in a lot of cases
depended on where a line on a map was drawn, as that will apparently stop a
fire in its tracks! :-(

I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see
> culverts mapped this way.
>

Sorry, I don't want to come across as anti your idea, because I can see
it's advantages, but I think there'll be quite a few issues involved in
doing what you want to achieve.


Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

We would like the culvert to be an  'isolated' segment of road for a number
of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however
anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or
heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the
culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road
because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other
culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and
tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established.
Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a
point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This
will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy
& application.

Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and
that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.

Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal
structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater
for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems -
typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external'
systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other
nicely.

We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would
greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into
bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing,
being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data
into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible.


I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see
culverts mapped this way.

Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way?

Kind regards,
--Andrew





On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:12, cleary  wrote:

> Thanks for that info.
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> > There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only
> > where signposted.
> >
> > Mark P.
> >
> > > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary  wrote:
> > >
> > > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think
> that is a separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as
> floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for
> that. If so, it should be only where signposted and we should not assume
> that every place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to
> flooding.
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[cleary]

Thanks for that info.


On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote:
> There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only 
> where signposted.
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary  wrote:
> > 
> > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is 
> > a separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways 
> > and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, 
> > it should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every 
> > place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Harvey]

I can see an argument for mapping culverts similar to highway=ford because
the single culvert structure can be considered both part of the road way
and water way, and generally one real world feature should be one object in
OSM.

However, there are some tags that would be context relevant, eg. width=* on
the road would be the roadwidth, but on the waterway would be the waterway
width (through the culvert). Similar for surface, it might make sense to
separately tag the road surface vs surface of the culvert. So here it can
be helpful to map the culvert essential separately for each context.

I agree that similar to a bridge if there is a weight restriction etc then
best to apply that to the way segment of the road, though a node usually
would be fine as a first pass of mapping.

I know that generally we prefer to only map things which are verifiable on
the ground, there is a lot of prior art with non-verifiable things being
mapped. Some kinds of admin boundaries, protected area boundaries,
wikipedia/wikidata tags. So while I think verifiability is important, I
think other non-verifiable things can be looked at case by case, based on
what it is, where the data is coming from.

For specific examples, it's hard to say without some photos.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 11:19, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping out
> Culverts on (way/highway) roads.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert
>
> The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage
> and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a
> bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have conditions of
> use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during natural disaster
> scenarios (i.e. flooding). *Note - tagging should be on the way, not on a
> node.*
>
> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
> conclusion
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>
> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e.
> river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water
> traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios.
> However, it doesn't help with road usage.
>
> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
>
> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
>
>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
>   - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*
>   
>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
>   - Way needs to be split
>   - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with
>   tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
>   - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*
>
> We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's important
> for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.
>
> Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses.
> Andrew
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mark Pulley]

There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only where 
signposted.

Mark P.

> On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary  wrote:
> 
> In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a 
> separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and 
> I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it 
> should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place 
> where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 19:22, cleary  wrote:

>
> In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that
> is a separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as
> floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for
> that.


On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 19:38, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> OSM doesn't really have any existing tagging for flood vulnerability of
> water crossing, except perhaps bridge=low_water_crossing. ford=yes could
> be anything from a track over a watercourse that runs maybe once a
> decade to a crossing that's only safe to use for a couple of days a year
> by vehicles equipped with a snorkel.
>

I can't see any reason not to just use ford=yes for floodways?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford suggests using depth=0 "for
fords that are dry most of the year", together with intermittent=yes. I've
done this for footpath fords, together with a description= "After heavy
rain only" & also a maxdepth=1, based on the flood height post.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 27, 2020, 01:15 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
>
Why?


> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
> Way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677>  :
> Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing? 
> 
> Way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
> Way needs to be split
> Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with tunnel > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
> Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?
>
Hard to say without photo of a location.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Davidson]

On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:


This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a 
conclusion 


It reached a conclusion quite a long time ago. The argument was about 
what to tag the waterway with to indicate that there is a culvert. I 
don't think there has ever been a push to tag the highway to indicate 
that there is a culvert.



We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.


Are you sure about that? As Phil points out you can spit the way above 
the culvert and tag that with maxweight, width, maxwidth, or whatever to 
indicate the effect that the culvert has on the traffic that is allowed 
to pass over it.


OSM doesn't really have any existing tagging for flood vulnerability of 
water crossing, except perhaps bridge=low_water_crossing. ford=yes could 
be anything from a track over a watercourse that runs maybe once a 
decade to a crossing that's only safe to use for a couple of days a year 
by vehicles equipped with a snorkel.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[cleary]

I agree with tagging any section of road with speed limits or weight limits 
where applicable. I have been driving on Australian roads for many years and, 
while I have seen bridges or sections of roads signposted as being subject to 
speed or weight limits, I do not recall ever seeing a few metres of road over a 
culvert with such limits.

If there are signposted limits, I support tagging the appropriate section of 
road. However, I would not support non-verifiable limits being added to OSM.  

If a section of road is subject to signposted limits, I think it would apply to 
a length of road longer than the short distance over a culvert so that the road 
limits would be mapped separately from the tunnel=culvert which is part of the 
waterway.  

While it is a matter for judgement in each case, waterways in culverts would 
usually be layer=-1 so that the road does not need to have a layer tag. Where 
the level of a road is elevated to cross a waterway, then it may be appropriate 
to add layer=1 but this would depend on survey or street-level imagery and 
unlikely to be determined from satellite imagery. 

In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a 
separate issue.  Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and I 
am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it should 
be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place where a road 
crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. 







On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping 
> out Culverts on (way/highway) roads.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert
> 
> The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage 
> and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a 
> bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have 
> conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during 
> natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). *Note - tagging should be 
> on the way, not on a node.*
> 
> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a 
> conclusion 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
> 
> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. 
> river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where 
> water traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many 
> scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage.
> 
> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
> 
> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
>  * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
>* _*Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*_ 
> 
>  * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
>* Way needs to be split
>* Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with 
> tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
>* _*Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*_
> We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's 
> important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.
> 
> Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses.
> Andrew
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi Graeme,

Thanks for looking at these.

Your layer=-1 / layer=1 suggestion would be very suitable if we were just
looking to visualize, however our end goal is to map these in such as way
that routing responses will identify all of the assets/structures being
traversed (including culverts). I would avoid using a spatial relationship
as it is unreliable nor easy to maintain.

I should've stated that looking at either of the x2 the (road) ways I used
as examples: 783119480  &
27885431  it's not possible to
determine that either (specifically) traverses a culvert. Best you can
determine on  783119480  is
that it traverses a "bridge" of no specific type/structure (bridge=yes).

re: splitting 27885431  - only
part of the way traverses the culvert. Just like 783119480
 iis the traversal of the
culvert(s) only.

I really didn't want to throw out ideas - because I'm such a novice and
there's a high probability that they will be nothing but noise. But it does
seem sensible (on the surface - pardon the pun) to use bridge=culvert (like
a water course is tagged with tunnel=culvert). There's alternate
discussions around using bridge=simple_brunnel (or man_made=culvert) but
all have extremely low adoption and seem controversial.


Thanks for taking a look, much appreciated.
Andrew



On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:19, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>>
>> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
>>
>
> Sorry, got to say that I personally can't see anything "wrong" with either
> of them?
>
>>
>>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
>>   - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*
>>
>> It looks like a defined bridge passing over a (probably) storm-water
> drain. The road is tagged as a bridge at layer=1. The drain could be tagged
> as -1 but I believe that's not strictly necessary.
>
>>
>>- 
>>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
>>   - Way needs to be split
>>   - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with
>>   tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
>>   - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*
>>
>> Why does the way need to be split? On imagery, it looks like a road
> without a discernible bridge, while the drain runs under it through a
> culvert as -1, which seems to be fine?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Andrew,

 

I think you also need to consider the maxweight and restrictions key in this 
discussion

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Restrictions

 

Is it not more likely that a road would have a displayed sign where a weight 
limit / restriction exists and this should be added to the road? I am not sure 
that most folks would have the ability to assess a culverts carrying capacity 
but I can see why you would like some attachment to the road way rather than 
the hydrology.

 

I am however, not up on all the fine detail on tagging – it does my head in 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Andrew Hughes  
Sent: Friday, 27 November 2020 11:16 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

 

Hi All,

 

Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping out 
Culverts on (way/highway) roads.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert

 

The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage and in 
particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a bridge in that 
they have weight & width limits and often have conditions of use (such as 
maximum speed) or considerations during natural disaster scenarios (i.e. 
flooding). Note - tagging should be on the way, not on a node.

 

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a conclusion 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

 

>From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. 
>river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water 
>traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios. 
>However, it doesn't help with road usage.

 

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.

 

Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?

*   Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :

*   Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?

*   Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480

*   Way needs to be split
*   Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with tunnel 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
*   Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?

We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's important for 
use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.

 

Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses.

Andrew

 

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:19, Andrew Hughes  wrote:

>
> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
>

Sorry, got to say that I personally can't see anything "wrong" with either
of them?

>
>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
>   - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*
>
> It looks like a defined bridge passing over a (probably) storm-water
drain. The road is tagged as a bridge at layer=1. The drain could be tagged
as -1 but I believe that's not strictly necessary.

>
>- 
>- Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
>   - Way needs to be split
>   - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with
>   tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
>   - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*
>
> Why does the way need to be split? On imagery, it looks like a road
without a discernible bridge, while the drain runs under it through a
culvert as -1, which seems to be fine?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Andrew Hughes]

Hi All,

Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping out
Culverts on (way/highway) roads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert

The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage and
in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a bridge in
that they have weight & width limits and often have conditions of use (such
as maximum speed) or considerations during natural disaster scenarios (i.e.
flooding). *Note - tagging should be on the way, not on a node.*

This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a
conclusion
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section

>From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e.
river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water
traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios.
However, it doesn't help with road usage.

We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.

Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?

   - Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 :
  - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*
  
   - Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
  - Way needs to be split
  - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with
  tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
  - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*

We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's important
for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons.

Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses.
Andrew
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au