Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Here is a few bullet point explaining my reasoning to decide if it is a
tunnel or not :
- I think that most of the exceptions mentioned, are well-known as being
a tunnel (like tunnel in Brussels). Thus it is not a problem for these.
- If you have nothing on top, and it is a passage going under something,
it is always a tunnel (like below a city, below a mountain, ...). if you
don't have something directly on top (no road, no railway...), there is no
question to me. Even if you generally have roads/railways somewhere above
these type of tunnel (For example, you often have something on the
mountain, but it is not "directly on top").
- Thus, the question is only posed in case where two
railway/highways/rivers/... (or any combination of them) crosses each
others. Then the usual rule of thumb can be applied :
1. if it looks like a bridge = a bridge;
2. if it looks like a tunnel (longer than wide, structure looks like
one, ... -> WHATEVER is your definition, it will always be subjective) then
it is a tunnel, ...
And we probably will always disagree on some of these interpretation. The
only case where it is really verifiable is when there is a sign telling
"bridge n°4295" like on our motorways or if the structure is named ("Viaduc
Herman Debroux", "Tunnel Montgommery", ...) or if an official database
exist with a classification.
Le mer. 29 mai 2019 à 06:04, Marc Gemis a écrit :
> additional things that can be part of the definition:
> - passages through embankments are (in general) not tunnels.
> - when a road passes over another one, located in a cutting, does not
> place the lower one in a tunnel (Antwerp ring road)
> - when the road goes under a waterway, the road is in a tunnel
>
> Again: exceptions will exist and they have to be seen as a rule of
> thumb, not a hard definition.
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:46 AM Marc Gemis wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK the tunnel=building_passage, this is not a tunnel, but using the
> > tunnel tag anyway. I guess the same is true for culvert. I would not
> > try to come up with a definition that is also applicable to those 2.
> >
> > Maybe my rule of thumb could be extended somehow for the metrotunnels,
> > which are clearly underground, and are therefore tunnels. For the mole
> > pipes, you write "dug out and covered", which is another indication
> > that it is a tunnel.
> >
> > That being said, I guess you will never find a definition that works
> > 100% of the time, because the real world is just messy.
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict
> than the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict
> interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for
> passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as
> tunnel=building_passage.
> > >
> > > Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your
> interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most
> elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of
> material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth
> (grond/aarde) that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a
> tunnel.": Then the 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels
> South is NOT a tunnel. It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The
> whole thing is dug out, built and then covered with streets, buildings and
> here there a bit of gorund.
> > > Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover'
> technique and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT
> a tunnel?
> > > Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are
> most likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things
> overneath: NO tunnels...
> > > And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in
> Genval? The railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no
> tunnels?
> > > On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but
> has been mapped as a tunnel...
> > >
> > > Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing
> earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete)
> like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole,
> make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common
> practice...
> > >
> > > So to me these seem to be useless definitions...
> > >
> > > Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The
> ringway around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground
> level. The cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this
> time). So where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a
> tunnel...? The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery,
> you can see clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get und
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
additional things that can be part of the definition: - passages through embankments are (in general) not tunnels. - when a road passes over another one, located in a cutting, does not place the lower one in a tunnel (Antwerp ring road) - when the road goes under a waterway, the road is in a tunnel Again: exceptions will exist and they have to be seen as a rule of thumb, not a hard definition. On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:46 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > > AFAIK the tunnel=building_passage, this is not a tunnel, but using the > tunnel tag anyway. I guess the same is true for culvert. I would not > try to come up with a definition that is also applicable to those 2. > > Maybe my rule of thumb could be extended somehow for the metrotunnels, > which are clearly underground, and are therefore tunnels. For the mole > pipes, you write "dug out and covered", which is another indication > that it is a tunnel. > > That being said, I guess you will never find a definition that works > 100% of the time, because the real world is just messy. > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than > > the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict > > interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for > > passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as > > tunnel=building_passage. > > > > Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your > > interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most > > elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of > > material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth > > (grond/aarde) that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a > > tunnel.": Then the 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels > > South is NOT a tunnel. It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The > > whole thing is dug out, built and then covered with streets, buildings and > > here there a bit of gorund. > > Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique > > and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel? > > Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most > > likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO > > tunnels... > > And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in Genval? The > > railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no tunnels? > > On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has > > been mapped as a tunnel... > > > > Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing > > earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) > > like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, > > make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common > > practice... > > > > So to me these seem to be useless definitions... > > > > Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway > > around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. > > The cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). > > So where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a > > tunnel...? The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, > > you can see clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the > > railway and the other roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex > > traffic changers where it is often very hard to see what the original > > ground level was. > > > > @ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can > > perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge > > with layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = > > -1 doesn't mean it is below ground level. > > > > @ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed > > before the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. > > And the definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows > > whether to map things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which > > order roads, railways, etc. were constructed. > > > > So can someone can come up with a useful definition? > > > > Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open > > bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the > > fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level > > doesn't matter. > > > > Regards, > > > > StijnRR > > > > > > > > Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis > > : > > > > > > This is the place: > > https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > (sorr
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
AFAIK the tunnel=building_passage, this is not a tunnel, but using the tunnel tag anyway. I guess the same is true for culvert. I would not try to come up with a definition that is also applicable to those 2. Maybe my rule of thumb could be extended somehow for the metrotunnels, which are clearly underground, and are therefore tunnels. For the mole pipes, you write "dug out and covered", which is another indication that it is a tunnel. That being said, I guess you will never find a definition that works 100% of the time, because the real world is just messy. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:57 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote: > > Hi, > > First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than > the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict > interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for > passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as > tunnel=building_passage. > > Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your > interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most > elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of > material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde) > that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a tunnel.": Then the > 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels South is NOT a tunnel. > It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The whole thing is dug out, > built and then covered with streets, buildings and here there a bit of gorund. > Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique > and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel? > Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most > likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO > tunnels... > And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in Genval? The > railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no tunnels? > On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has > been mapped as a tunnel... > > Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing > earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) > like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, > make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common > practice... > > So to me these seem to be useless definitions... > > Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway > around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. The > cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). So > where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a tunnel...? > The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, you can see > clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the railway and the > other roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex traffic changers > where it is often very hard to see what the original ground level was. > > @ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can > perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge > with layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = > -1 doesn't mean it is below ground level. > > @ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed > before the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. > And the definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows > whether to map things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which > order roads, railways, etc. were constructed. > > So can someone can come up with a useful definition? > > Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open > bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the > fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level > doesn't matter. > > Regards, > > StijnRR > > > > Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis > : > > > This is the place: > https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > (sorry no Mapillary images yet). > > Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel > under the E34/A11. > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > I think there is a tunnel under the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate. > > There used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they > > created an underground passage for it. > > > > M > > > > Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard : > >> > >> @joost schouppe To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same > >> structure as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars > >> > >> A tunnel is generally somethin
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hi, First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as tunnel=building_passage. Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde) that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a tunnel.": Then the 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels South is NOT a tunnel. It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The whole thing is dug out, built and then covered with streets, buildings and here there a bit of gorund. Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel? Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO tunnels...And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in Genval? The railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no tunnels? On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has been mapped as a tunnel... Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common practice... So to me these seem to be useless definitions... Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. The cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). So where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a tunnel...? The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, you can see clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the railway and the other roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex traffic changers where it is often very hard to see what the original ground level was. @ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge with layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = -1 doesn't mean it is below ground level. @ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed before the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. And the definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows whether to map things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which order roads, railways, etc. were constructed. So can someone can come up with a useful definition? Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level doesn't matter. Regards, StijnRR Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis : This is the place: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (sorry no Mapillary images yet). Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel under the E34/A11. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis wrote: > > I think there is a tunnel under the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate. There > used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they created an > underground passage for it. > > M > > Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard : >> >> @joost schouppe To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same structure >> as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars >> >> A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and >> consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel >> if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put >> back the earth on top ! ;-) >> >> I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or >> motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground >> or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we >> classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone >> quoted from wikipedia. >> >> ___ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Well... My feeling is there is no tunnel there. Even when the under-passage is quite long in regard with the width. Could the railway bridge (at the 2nd link) be considered a viaduct ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaduct Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. Message d'origine De : joost schouppe Date : 28/05/19 12:28 (GMT+01:00) À : OpenStreetMap Belgium Objet : Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? Hmm, how about this case: https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054&lng=4.035847194701205&z=17&pKey=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ&focus=photo&x=0.5005982815044207&y=0.34925403860156434&zoom=0 It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks like a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge again :) ? Joost Schouppe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
This is the place: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (sorry no Mapillary images yet). Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel under the E34/A11. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis wrote: > > I think there is a tunnel under the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate. There > used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they created an > underground passage for it. > > M > > Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard : >> >> @joost schouppe To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same structure >> as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars >> >> A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and >> consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel >> if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put >> back the earth on top ! ;-) >> >> I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or >> motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground >> or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we >> classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone >> quoted from wikipedia. >> >> ___ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
I think there is a tunnel under the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate. There used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they created an underground passage for it. M Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard : > @joost schouppe To me that's indeed a bridge, > as you see the same structure as on the motorway bridges : a platform > supported by pillars > > A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and > consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway > tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel > and put back the earth on top ! ;-) > > I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or > motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground > or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we > classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone > quoted from wikipedia. > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
@joost schouppe To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same structure as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put back the earth on top ! ;-) I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone quoted from wikipedia. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
@Gerard: don't quite agree - but essentially it comes down in part ot what Lionel added, about how the structure is built. A bridge is typically built on two load-bearing bases at either end, and a platform/arch/.. over it to help carry whatever goes over it. A tunnel is dug below or pushed through. In case of my examples: road was first, and at this point the railway was built on top of it, at a raised level -> hence a bridge. The pillars / crossbar / load-bearing T-style plates are clearly visible. The cycleway tunnel was built after, by constructing the concrete elements and then PUSH it under/through the embankment which holds the trainrails, making it a tunnel.(and due to how it's built, people do refer to it as a tunnel) @joost schouppe Good question. Lionels reasoning would say it's a bridge, Mine would probably have this as a tunnel. Lionels feels more accurate there though.I'll just assume that 'landscaping' at this scale to make it happen is cheating a bit. But it does show my idea isn't entirely 'bulletproof'. Op di 28 mei 2019 om 12:29 schreef joost schouppe : > Hmm, how about this case: > > > https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads > > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054&lng=4.035847194701205&z=17&pKey=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ&focus=photo&x=0.5005982815044207&y=0.34925403860156434&zoom=0 > > It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks > like a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge > again :) ? > > Joost Schouppe > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
I doubt one had to dig something for the road to pass under the railway. There is no "earth" between the road and the sky, only stuff that humans created, like concrete, stones and asphalt. So a bridge for me. I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde) that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a tunnel. (similar to the digging rule mentioned earlier). m. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:29 PM joost schouppe wrote: > > Hmm, how about this case: > > https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054&lng=4.035847194701205&z=17&pKey=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ&focus=photo&x=0.5005982815044207&y=0.34925403860156434&zoom=0 > > It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks > like a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge > again :) ? > > Joost Schouppe > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hmm, how about this case: https://play.osm.be/historischekaart.html#18/50.84125/4.03590/dhm_hill-osmroads https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8409878896054&lng=4.035847194701205&z=17&pKey=CemcYfldMKwaCCdn0eK2bQ&focus=photo&x=0.5005982815044207&y=0.34925403860156434&zoom=0 It's a road that was dug under a slightly raised train track, but it looks like a bridge. Or is it bridge for the road, tunnel under the train, bridge again :) ? Joost Schouppe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
I don't think that, what was first, is always relevant. Your cycleway 'tunnel' is a bridge. A tunnel has to go in depth or under a lot of other things (not a simple crossing). A bridge is in general less thick then the height of the passage. Or the height of a tunnel is less than half the level difference. Regards, Gerard Tim Couwelier schreef op 2019-05-28 09:28: > I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here. > > As for how I try to decide: > Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this > one is at goes as the 'baselevel'. > Either a new road / railway / .. goes: > OVER it, making that a bridge > UNDER it, making it a tunnel > AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL, making the existing road/path a bridge or tunnel based > on how that got adjusted. > > That makes this a railway-bridge: > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9501557,3.1304248,3a,60y,255.18h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8dGdG1hKMYxX3JldKdTSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > But this, just a bit further, and at the same level as the road shown in the > previous example, a tunnel for cyclists: > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9516067,3.1299799,3a,48.9y,281.94h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPooi08Nvz-feFB6XzaibnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > Hope that makes sense, I personally feel it matches with how people tend to > label things. > > Op di 28 mei 2019 om 00:04 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet > : > > Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug, it's > not a tunnel. > > I have another cool example, not from belgium though: > https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste (in > winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on top). > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Pieter Vander Vennet > > Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . : > > Hi Stijn and all > > In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in mountain, > under a river, ... > > Otherwise I would think of a viaduct. > > In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel. > > Just my 2 cents... > > Pierre > > Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. > > Message d'origine > De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be > Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00) > À : OpenStreetMap Belgium > Cc : Stijn Rombauts > Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? > > Hi, > > 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an > embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 4. This one looks more like a bridge: > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 6. And if it gets shorter? > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 7. And this? > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a > bridge? Or above a tunnel? > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > 9. And if you turn around: > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > > I am curious about your opinion... > But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How should > they be mapped? That's the question. > > Regards, > > StijnRR > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
I agree with the above answer that except #2, all are bridge. One other method to identify a bridge is to check the structure (either with a "tablier"/bridge deck which goes from one support to the next, or with arch like one of the example...). There are typical bridge structure, while most tunnel are just a concrete passage. Le mar. 28 mai 2019 à 09:29, Tim Couwelier a écrit : > I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here. > > As for how I try to decide: > Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this > one is at goes as the 'baselevel'. > Either a new road / railway / .. goes: > OVER it, making that a bridge > UNDER it, making it a tunnel > AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL, making the existing road/path a bridge or tunnel > based on how that got adjusted. > > That makes this a railway-bridge: > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9501557,3.1304248,3a,60y,255.18h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8dGdG1hKMYxX3JldKdTSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > But this, just a bit further, and at the same level as the road shown in > the previous example, a tunnel for cyclists: > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9516067,3.1299799,3a,48.9y,281.94h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPooi08Nvz-feFB6XzaibnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > Hope that makes sense, I personally feel it matches with how people tend > to label things. > > > > > > Op di 28 mei 2019 om 00:04 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet < > pieterv...@gmail.com>: > >> Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug, >> it's not a tunnel. >> >> I have another cool example, not from belgium though: >> https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste >> (in winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on >> top). >> >> Met vriendelijke groeten, >> Pieter Vander Vennet >> >> >> Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . : >> >>> Hi Stijn and all >>> >>> In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in >>> mountain, under a river, ... >>> >>> Otherwise I would think of a viaduct. >>> >>> In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel. >>> >>> Just my 2 cents... >>> >>> Pierre >>> >>> >>> >>> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. >>> >>> Message d'origine >>> De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be >>> Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00) >>> À : OpenStreetMap Belgium >>> Cc : Stijn Rombauts >>> Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on >>> an embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 4. This one looks more like a bridge: >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 6. And if it gets shorter? >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 7. And this? >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>> 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on >>> a bridge? Or above a tunnel? >>> >>> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >>> >>>
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here. As for how I try to decide: Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this one is at goes as the 'baselevel'. Either a new road / railway / .. goes: OVER it, making that a bridge UNDER it, making it a tunnel AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL, making the existing road/path a bridge or tunnel based on how that got adjusted. That makes this a railway-bridge: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9501557,3.1304248,3a,60y,255.18h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8dGdG1hKMYxX3JldKdTSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 But this, just a bit further, and at the same level as the road shown in the previous example, a tunnel for cyclists: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9516067,3.1299799,3a,48.9y,281.94h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPooi08Nvz-feFB6XzaibnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Hope that makes sense, I personally feel it matches with how people tend to label things. Op di 28 mei 2019 om 00:04 schreef Pieter Vander Vennet < pieterv...@gmail.com>: > Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug, > it's not a tunnel. > > I have another cool example, not from belgium though: > https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste (in > winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on top). > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Pieter Vander Vennet > > > Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . : > >> Hi Stijn and all >> >> In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in >> mountain, under a river, ... >> >> Otherwise I would think of a viaduct. >> >> In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel. >> >> Just my 2 cents... >> >> Pierre >> >> >> >> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. >> >> ---- Message d'origine >> De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be >> Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00) >> À : OpenStreetMap Belgium >> Cc : Stijn Rombauts >> Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? >> >> Hi, >> >> 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an >> embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 4. This one looks more like a bridge: >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 6. And if it gets shorter? >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 7. And this? >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on >> a bridge? Or above a tunnel? >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> 9. And if you turn around: >> >> https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl >> >> I am curious about your opinion... >> But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How >> should they be mapped? That's the question. >> >> Regards, >> >> StijnRR >> >> ___ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Cool collection of bridges (except #2). I too think that if its not dug, it's not a tunnel. I have another cool example, not from belgium though: https://www.google.be/maps/@45.5067122,6.6792676,3a,75y,267.08h,77.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJwtCeCLHlLxMPnVB_ZYdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl This view is on a bridge (over a small valley) which acts as ski piste (in winter), and continues through a building (which has a ski piste on top). Met vriendelijke groeten, Pieter Vander Vennet Op ma 27 mei 2019 om 22:44 schreef GeDeOn . : > Hi Stijn and all > > In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in > mountain, under a river, ... > > Otherwise I would think of a viaduct. > > In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel. > > Just my 2 cents... > > Pierre > > > > Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. > > Message d'origine > De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be > Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00) > À : OpenStreetMap Belgium > Cc : Stijn Rombauts > Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? > > Hi, > > 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an > embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 4. This one looks more like a bridge: > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 6. And if it gets shorter? > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 7. And this? > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a > bridge? Or above a tunnel? > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > 9. And if you turn around: > > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl > > I am curious about your opinion... > But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How > should they be mapped? That's the question. > > Regards, > > StijnRR > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hi Stijn and all In my opinion, a tunnel is something that was dug, in a hill or in mountain, under a river, ... Otherwise I would think of a viaduct. In that regard only your case #2 is a tunnel. Just my 2 cents... Pierre Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy. Message d'origine De : Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be Date : 27/05/19 20:57 (GMT+01:00) À : OpenStreetMap Belgium Cc : Stijn Rombauts Objet : [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel? Hi, 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 4. This one looks more like a bridge: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 6. And if it gets shorter? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 7. And this? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a bridge? Or above a tunnel? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 9. And if you turn around: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl I am curious about your opinion... But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How should they be mapped? That's the question. Regards, StijnRR ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hello, I would consider each situation from #3 to #9 here as a bridge. Here’s why. If there had never been a railway, the road would be where it is now, and it is perfectly flat and aligned with the houses nearby (implicitely level=0 and layer=0 in OSM). On the contrary, the embankment is an artificial structure that has been built to raise the railway and make it fly over the road. I tried to have a look at Infrabel’s Open Data portal, but couldn’t find a list of their bridges so far. They manage about 4,800 bridges and it would make sense that our data match theirs. Cheers. Yves On Mon, 27 May 2019 22:24:32 +0200 ghia wrote: > I think some passages are called a mole pipe, but that makes it not a > tunnel. > > Don't have tunnel vision: All your examples are railroad bridges. > > A tunnel has mosttimes also a depth: it lies not under, but beneath > something and/or crosses several things. > > Also, sometimes a traffic sign F8 can be found near the entrence. > > Regards, > > Gerard > > OSMDoudou schreef op 2019-05-27 21:32: > > > If it can help, Wikipedia cites criteria like twice as long as wide and > > "creating a confined area". > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel > > https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel > > ___ > > Talk-be mailing list > > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
I think some passages are called a mole pipe, but that makes it not a tunnel. Don't have tunnel vision: All your examples are railroad bridges. A tunnel has mosttimes also a depth: it lies not under, but beneath something and/or crosses several things. Also, sometimes a traffic sign F8 can be found near the entrence. Regards, Gerard OSMDoudou schreef op 2019-05-27 21:32: > If it can help, Wikipedia cites criteria like twice as long as wide and > "creating a confined area". > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel > https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
If it can help, Wikipedia cites criteria like twice as long as wide and “creating a confined area”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hoi Stijn, Het kan zijn dat ik iets mis - het is een zware dag geweest op het werk :( - maar volstaat het niet om ter plekke eens te gaan kijken? Let wel, in het kader van mijn eigen specialisme (vliegvelden in de ruime zin van het woord) ben ik zelf vaak genoeg aan het mappen op plaatsen waar ik nooit geweest ben, maar dan moet men ook beseffen dat men maar wat in het wilde weg aan het gokken is - niets gaat boven lokale waarneming! En dus kan men licht worden bijgestuurd door iemand die in de buurt rondhangt. Soms verkies ik toch een "educated guess" boven helemaal niks, maar ik weet zeker dat velen dat omgekeerd zien. Uw humoristische verwoordingen werden hier erg op prijs gesteld! Monkel, monkel :) Karel ADAMS On 5/27/19 6:57 PM, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote: Hi, 1. This is a bridge: no doubt. https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough. https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 4. This one looks more like a bridge: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 6. And if it gets shorter? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 7. And this? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a bridge? Or above a tunnel? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 9. And if you turn around: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl I am curious about your opinion... But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How should they be mapped? That's the question. Regards, StijnRR ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hi, 1. This is a bridge: no doubt.https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough.https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 4. This one looks more like a bridge:https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 6. And if it gets shorter?https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 7. And this?https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a bridge? Or above a tunnel?https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 9. And if you turn around:https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl I am curious about your opinion...But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How should they be mapped? That's the question. Regards, StijnRR ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
