Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Welty]

On 12/3/09 9:44 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to mark up a foot bridge that is closed.
>   The bridge is still standing, but it is gated off because it is
> unsafe.
>
> To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the bridge, like in the case of
> a bridge that has been washed out.  The bridge is still standing, but
> I want to be able to indicate that the path isn't passable.  Is there
> a standard way of marking this up?
>
for that matter, marking roads closed would be good as well. i know of 
several examples of closed
roads and bridges in upstate NY that may or may not be reopened 
depending on rehab/replacement,
etc.

something as simple as closed=yes/closed=temporary/closed=indefinite 
would seem to suffice.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Seth Fitzsimmons]

>> I am trying to figure out how to mark up a foot bridge that is closed.
>>   The bridge is still standing, but it is gated off because it is
>> unsafe.
>>
>> To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the bridge, like in the case of
>> a bridge that has been washed out.  The bridge is still standing, but
>> I want to be able to indicate that the path isn't passable.  Is there
>> a standard way of marking this up?
>>
> for that matter, marking roads closed would be good as well. i know of
> several examples of closed
> roads and bridges in upstate NY that may or may not be reopened
> depending on rehab/replacement,
> etc.
>
> something as simple as closed=yes/closed=temporary/closed=indefinite
> would seem to suffice.

The Crown Point bridge
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28436071) comes to mind; it's
constructed of non-reinforced concrete and was essentially condemned
recently with only a few hours notice
(http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_e77cd748-ba8b-11de-9ff0-001cc4c03286.html).

If you decide what an appropriate tag is, would you mind updating this
at the same time?

seth

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Anthony]

What's wrong with access=no?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Kate]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM, David Fawcett  wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to mark up a foot bridge that is closed.
>  The bridge is still standing, but it is gated off because it is
> unsafe.
>
> To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the bridge, like in the case of
> a bridge that has been washed out.  The bridge is still standing, but
> I want to be able to indicate that the path isn't passable.  Is there
> a standard way of marking this up?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David.
>

Try access=no, which I think works with mapnik rendering.

You can use that in combination with other tags, like closed=yes or
whatever else you think is appropriate.

-Kate


> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Kate]

Also you can use the description tag for any additional explanation:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description

-Kate

>
> Try access=no, which I think works with mapnik rendering.
>
> You can use that in combination with other tags, like closed=yes or
> whatever else you think is appropriate.
>
> -Kate
>
>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Welty]

On 12/3/09 10:28 PM, Seth Fitzsimmons wrote:
>>>
>> for that matter, marking roads closed would be good as well. i know of
>> several examples of closed
>> roads and bridges in upstate NY that may or may not be reopened
>> depending on rehab/replacement,
>> etc.
>>
>> something as simple as closed=yes/closed=temporary/closed=indefinite
>> would seem to suffice.
>>  
> The Crown Point bridge
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28436071) comes to mind; it's
> constructed of non-reinforced concrete and was essentially condemned
> recently with only a few hours notice
> (http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_e77cd748-ba8b-11de-9ff0-001cc4c03286.html).
>
that was one of the ones i had in mind. there's also a closed highway 
bridge over the
big rail yard in southern albany county that has the locals up in arms, 
and a closed
street in downtown albany that may be reopened if the renovation of the 
adjacent
courthouse is ever finished (i'm not holding my breath.)

> If you decide what an appropriate tag is, would you mind updating this
> at the same time?
>
i don't think i get to "decide" this.

i think that if no one has a standard answer here, i'll bring it up on 
the tagging list.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[David Fawcett]

I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer.  I am
thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
connectivity.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> On 12/3/09 10:28 PM, Seth Fitzsimmons wrote:

>>> for that matter, marking roads closed would be good as well. i know of
>>> several examples of closed
>>> roads and bridges in upstate NY that may or may not be reopened
>>> depending on rehab/replacement,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> something as simple as closed=yes/closed=temporary/closed=indefinite
>>> would seem to suffice.
>>>
>> The Crown Point bridge
>> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28436071) comes to mind; it's
>> constructed of non-reinforced concrete and was essentially condemned
>> recently with only a few hours notice
>> (http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_e77cd748-ba8b-11de-9ff0-001cc4c03286.html).
>>
> that was one of the ones i had in mind. there's also a closed highway
> bridge over the
> big rail yard in southern albany county that has the locals up in arms,
> and a closed
> street in downtown albany that may be reopened if the renovation of the
> adjacent
> courthouse is ever finished (i'm not holding my breath.)
>
>> If you decide what an appropriate tag is, would you mind updating this
>> at the same time?
>>
> i don't think i get to "decide" this.
>
> i think that if no one has a standard answer here, i'll bring it up on
> the tagging list.
>
> richard
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Welty]

On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
> I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer.  I am
> thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
> connectivity.
>
>
i'm going to try out the suggested access=no/description=blahblahblah method
see what i think about it.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Welty]

On 12/3/09 11:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
>
>> I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer.  I am
>> thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
>> connectivity.
>>
>>
>>  
> i'm going to try out the suggested access=no/description=blahblahblah method
> see what i think about it.
>
and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable 
from access=private

on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from 
an existing renderer.

maybe an additional term on access ("access=closed"), so that some 
future renderer will be
able to distinguish the different reasons for restricted access.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

>
> The Crown Point bridge
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28436071) comes to mind; it's
> constructed of non-reinforced concrete and was essentially condemned
> recently with only a few hours notice
> (
> http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_e77cd748-ba8b-11de-9ff0-001cc4c03286.html
> ).
>
> If you decide what an appropriate tag is, would you mind updating this
> at the same time?
>

I haven't decided on an appropriate tag, but I went ahead an removed the
Crown Point Bridge from the map to keep things up to date.  I left the way
intact, just removed the highway and bridge tags so nothing gets
rendered.
 I also left a note explaining the current situation for the next mapper who
edits the area.  When an appropriate tag is decided upon, or a new bridge is
built, this way can be updated.  That's the beauty of OSM!

As for tagging, here's how we do roads/bridges that are under construction:
highway = construction
construction = primary

why not use this same structure for closed roads/bridges?
highway = closed
closed = primary

The Crown Point bridge is currently closed.  Soon it will be demolished.
 Then construction on a new one will begin.   Because this is the usual
cycle, I think the rendering that is used for roads under construction (dashed
line)
would make sense for closed roads/bridges as well.  I'l probably tag the
Crown Point bridge as under construction right now, but tagging for the
renderer is wrong.  However, if I did it would be true in 6 months!
 Actually this road tagged as under
construction,
probably shouldn't be.  Construction was stopped on it years ago, so at this
point it's just closed.  Anyhow, that's a good reason for rendering of
closed & construction to be the same or similar.  There is a fine line
between them.  Construction implies it will be open in the future, Closed
does not.  Subtle difference for the slippy map, but important for the
underlying data.


Zeke
Burlington, VT
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

>
> something as simple as closed=yes/closed=temporary/closed=indefinite
> would seem to suffice.
>

I like this proposal as it could also encompass regular seasonal closures.
 There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow.  These could be
tagged as:

closed = Nov-May

or

closed = yearly
closure_dates = Nov-May

The hard part would be getting Mapnik to render this information.  It would
either have to be smart enough to change to the closed rendering during the
specified dates, or have a different rendering for roads that are closed
seasonally with the dates indicated after the name.

Zeke
Burlington, VT
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Welty]

On 12/4/09 12:45 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:


something as simple as closed=yes/closed=temporary/closed=indefinite
would seem to suffice.


I like this proposal as it could also encompass regular seasonal 
closures.  There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that 
are generally closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to 
snow.  These could be tagged as:


closed = Nov-May

or

closed = yearly
closure_dates = Nov-May

i like this second one, with a little tweaking it might also cover
a projected reopening after renovation/replacement.

it would also account for seasonal roads, there are a number of
lovely dirt roads in Washington County with signage warning
that the town doesn't plow them.

for that matter, there are roads in the Alps that don't get plowed,
are there any european mappers following this list who know
if those get tagged for seasonal closure, and if so, how?

this weekend, i'll see about pulling this together into a proposal
and bring it up on the tagging list.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Matthias Julius]

Richard Welty  writes:

> On 12/3/09 11:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer.  I am
>>> thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
>>> connectivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>> i'm going to try out the suggested access=no/description=blahblahblah method
>> see what i think about it.
>>
> and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable 
> from access=private
>
> on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from 
> an existing renderer.

Exactly!  Don't tag for the renderer!

>
> maybe an additional term on access ("access=closed"), so that some 
> future renderer will be
> able to distinguish the different reasons for restricted access.

If the public does not have access at all then access=no is the
appropriate tag, IMO.

If you want to indicate the reason that should go into a separate tag.

I don't think it is a good idea to invent a new access tag for every
nuance of access restriction.  No application can keep up with all
those.

If you want access=no to be rendered differently from access=private
you can try to convince the people in charge of the rendering styles
to do that.

Matthias

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:

> Richard Welty  writes:
> > and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable
> > from access=private
> >
> > on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from
> > an existing renderer.
>
> Exactly!  Don't tag for the renderer!
>

In this case, I'd say the renderer is right.  Both access=private and
access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
explicit approval.  In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn
differently.


> > maybe an additional term on access ("access=closed"), so that some
> > future renderer will be
> > able to distinguish the different reasons for restricted access.
>
> If the public does not have access at all then access=no is the
> appropriate tag, IMO.
>

+1
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

>
> In this case, I'd say the renderer is right.  Both access=private and
> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
> explicit approval.  In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
> from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn
> differently.


I disagree, perhaps access=private and access=no do mean the same thing, but
in that case access=no is not a good option for a closed bridge.  There are
two distinct situations:

   1. A road/bridge is private and access is only allowed for specified
   users.  Condition of the road is fine, so even if you are not allowed, you
   could choose to break the rules and use the road/bridge as long as there is
   no gate.
   2. A road/bridge is closed because it is unsafe, under construction, or
   impassible.  Even if you are granted access, it would not be desirable to
   use said road/bridge.

It's been decided that access=private definitely indicates sitation 1.
 Situation 2 does not have a definite tagging scheme. Except for under
construction.

Zeke
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

>
> for that matter, there are roads in the Alps that don't get plowed,
> are there any european mappers following this list who know
> if those get tagged for seasonal closure, and if so, how?
>

I've seen a variety of discussions about seasonal closures on the wiki, but
none with lasting results.  One thing I have seen mentioned is that any
seasonal closure tagging scheme should encompass closure due to snow in
winter for mountainous regions, as well as flooding in the rainy season for
tropical areas.

Here are all the reasons for a road existing but being closed (distinguished
from private) that I can think of:

   - Under construction  (this already has a tagging sytem)
   - Damaged or blocked by disaster.  Re-construction or cleanup may be
   pending or not.
   - Old and unsafe. Re-construction may be pending or not.
   - Blocked/unmaintained seasonally (winter in mountains, rainy season in
   tropics, others?)

Personally I think these should all be rendered in generally the same style
on the Mapnik slippy map.  A note in parenthesis rendered after the road
name could be used to show the reason for closure. This could be a separate
tag.  To most map viewers what matters is that the road is closed, not the
reason.  These 4 cases do overlap and could be combined somewhat, but I
think having some differentiating data in the DB is good because, although
it's not needed for a general road map, it could be useful for a more
specific map in the future.


> this weekend, i'll see about pulling this together into a proposal
> and bring it up on the tagging list.
>

Thanks Richard!

Zeke
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Zeke Farwell  wrote:

> In this case, I'd say the renderer is right.  Both access=private and
>> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
>> explicit approval.  In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
>> from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn
>> differently.
>
>
> I disagree, perhaps access=private and access=no do mean the same thing,
> but in that case access=no is not a good option for a closed bridge.
>

Well, I didn't say they mean exactly the same thing, just essentially the
same thing, within the context of a map.

There are two distinct situations:
>
>1. A road/bridge is private and access is only allowed for specified
>users.  Condition of the road is fine, so even if you are not allowed, you
>could choose to break the rules and use the road/bridge as long as there is
>no gate.
>2. A road/bridge is closed because it is unsafe, under construction, or
>impassible.  Even if you are granted access, it would not be desirable to
>use said road/bridge.
>
>
Road condition is separate from access=*.  Safety is separate from
access=*.  In any case, access=closed tells us none of this.  There are
perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which are closed.


> It's been decided that access=private definitely indicates sitation 1.
>  Situation 2 does not have a definite tagging scheme. Except for under
> construction.
>

Sure it does.  There's smoothness=impassible, which arguably could also be
used for unsafe.  If you don't like using smoothness=impassible to indicate
an unsafe bridge, come up with some sort of safety=unsafe tag (not sure how
verifiable it'll be, though).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> There are perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which
> are closed.
>

For example, the bridge between Ellis Island and the mainland of New
Jersey.  Should that be tagged with access=private, access=no,
access=closed, access=emergency, access=official, or something else?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Zeke Farwell  wrote:

> Here are all the reasons for a road existing but being closed
> (distinguished from private) that I can think of:
>
>- Under construction  (this already has a tagging sytem)
>- Damaged or blocked by disaster.  Re-construction or cleanup may be
>pending or not.
>- Old and unsafe. Re-construction may be pending or not.
>- Blocked/unmaintained seasonally (winter in mountains, rainy season in
>tropics, others?)
>
> I'll add this one:

* State wants to help the ferry operators make more money by blocking off
access to an island by bridge.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Jeff Barlow]

Zeke Farwell   wrote:

> There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
>closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow.  These could be
>tagged as:
>
>closed = Nov-May
>
>or
>
>closed = yearly
>closure_dates = Nov-May
>
>The hard part would be getting Mapnik to render this information.  It would
>either have to be smart enough to change to the closed rendering during the
>specified dates, or have a different rendering for roads that are closed
>seasonally with the dates indicated after the name.

Out here in the west we have many highways over mountain passes
that are regularly closed during the winter. On typical paper
maps there is text along them that says "closed in winter". Seems
to me we need something similar. 

-- 
Jeff Barlow
WB6CSV

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Shank]

Jeff Barlow wrote:

Zeke Farwell   wrote:

  

There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow.  These could be
tagged as:

closed = Nov-May

or

closed = yearly
closure_dates = Nov-May

The hard part would be getting Mapnik to render this information.  It would
either have to be smart enough to change to the closed rendering during the
specified dates, or have a different rendering for roads that are closed
seasonally with the dates indicated after the name.



Out here in the west we have many highways over mountain passes
that are regularly closed during the winter. On typical paper
maps there is text along them that says "closed in winter". Seems
to me we need something similar. 

  

Or chains required is something else you will see.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Randy]

Jeff Barlow wrote:

>Zeke Farwell   wrote:
>
>>There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
>>closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow.  These could 
>>be
>>tagged as:
>>
>>closed = Nov-May
>>
>>or
>>
>>closed = yearly
>>closure_dates = Nov-May
>>
>>The hard part would be getting Mapnik to render this information.  It 
>>would
>>either have to be smart enough to change to the closed rendering during 
>>the
>>specified dates, or have a different rendering for roads that are closed
>>seasonally with the dates indicated after the name.
>
>Out here in the west we have many highways over mountain passes
>that are regularly closed during the winter. On typical paper
>maps there is text along them that says "closed in winter". Seems
>to me we need something similar.

access=seasonal, with a second tag for open or closed dates?

-- 
Randy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

It seems to me that access is forbidden to a private road because the
landowner says so.  It is not a public right of way, and it will remain so
for the foreseeable future.  If a bridge that normally would be a public
right of way is closed, I would like to see that rendered differently on a
map from a private road.  On a low level the information is the same:  you
can't use this way.  But this leaves unanswered questions:  Is the way
completely unused and unmaintained, or is access just forbidden to the
public?  Is access forbidden indefinitely or will it be allowed again in the
future?  As a map user, I'd like to be able to easily find the answers to
these questions.

I think access=no make sense for any closed road/bridge, but I'd like some
supporting tags to supply the rest of the information.  The access page on
the wiki  mentions some time
restriction tags (date_on, date_off, time_on, time_off).  These could work
for seasonal or temporary closures but I'm not too sure how to use them.

On another note, I don't like rendering of the
access=no/privatetag.
 I think the red highlighting stands out way too much.  Private/closed
roads should stand out less than their open counterparts in my opinion.
highway=construction,
and 
rail=abandoned/disusedare
both less obvious on the sippy map than in use rail and highways.  Am
I
alone here, or do other people agree?

I probably should move this conversation to the tagging list at this point.
 Is it just tagg...@openstreetmap.org?


Zeke




On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Zeke Farwell  wrote:
>
>>  In this case, I'd say the renderer is right.  Both access=private and
>>> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
>>> explicit approval.  In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
>>> from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn
>>> differently.
>>
>>
>> I disagree, perhaps access=private and access=no do mean the same thing,
>> but in that case access=no is not a good option for a closed bridge.
>>
>
> Well, I didn't say they mean exactly the same thing, just essentially the
> same thing, within the context of a map.
>
> There are two distinct situations:
>>
>>1. A road/bridge is private and access is only allowed for specified
>>users.  Condition of the road is fine, so even if you are not allowed, you
>>could choose to break the rules and use the road/bridge as long as there 
>> is
>>no gate.
>>2. A road/bridge is closed because it is unsafe, under construction,
>>or impassible.  Even if you are granted access, it would not be desirable 
>> to
>>use said road/bridge.
>>
>>
> Road condition is separate from access=*.  Safety is separate from
> access=*.  In any case, access=closed tells us none of this.  There are
> perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which are closed.
>
>
>> It's been decided that access=private definitely indicates sitation 1.
>>  Situation 2 does not have a definite tagging scheme. Except for under
>> construction.
>>
>
> Sure it does.  There's smoothness=impassible, which arguably could also be
> used for unsafe.  If you don't like using smoothness=impassible to indicate
> an unsafe bridge, come up with some sort of safety=unsafe tag (not sure how
> verifiable it'll be, though).
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

>
> access=seasonal, with a second tag for open or closed dates?
>

access=seasonal makes sense to me in conjunction with the date_on, and
date_off tags on the wiki.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Zeke Farwell  wrote:
>
>> Here are all the reasons for a road existing but being closed
>> (distinguished from private) that I can think of:
>>
>>- Under construction  (this already has a tagging sytem)
>>- Damaged or blocked by disaster.  Re-construction or cleanup may be
>>pending or not.
>>- Old and unsafe. Re-construction may be pending or not.
>>- Blocked/unmaintained seasonally (winter in mountains, rainy season
>>in tropics, others?)
>>
>> I'll add this one:
>
> * State wants to help the ferry operators make more money by blocking off
> access to an island by bridge.
>

I guess we can add a general "Political" to the list then [?].
<<338.png>>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Jeff Barlow]

Randy   wrote:

>
>access=seasonal, with a second tag for open or closed dates?

In the case of the mountain passes I have in mind the dates are
chosen each year by mother nature. 

-- 
Jeff Barlow
WB6CSV

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Welty]

On 12/4/09 11:03 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote:


I probably should move this conversation to the tagging list at this 
point.  Is it just tagg...@openstreetmap.org 
?



yes, and if you want to work up a proposal, feel free. i had said i 
would do it, but i just found out today

that i need to update my resume.

richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Zeke Farwell  wrote:
[ ... ]
> I think access=no make sense for any closed road/bridge, but I'd like some
> supporting tags to supply the rest of the information.

That would be nice. I'd hope that the mapper reporting the closed
bridge in this case would add extra tags or at least the note tag as
applicable.  In this case perhaps closed = condemned and never to open
again?

> On another note, I don't like rendering of the access=no/private tag.

Now that is another matter.  Not "tagging" but rendering.  If you have
a look at how bride=yes, access=closed renders on the four default OSM
layers (mapnik, osmarender, cyclemap and nonames) you might find four
different renderings.  Suggestions to improve those should made at
http://trac/openstreetmap.org and filed under the name of the
renderer.  If you can include a mockup or the style file that would
make you some kind of super-hero.

> I probably should move this conversation to the tagging list at this point.
>  Is it just tagg...@openstreetmap.org?

No, I think you covered it.  ;-)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Randy]

Zeke Farwell wrote:

>access=seasonal makes sense to me in conjunction with the date_on, and
>date_off tags on the wiki.

On and off aren't clear to me. Does on mean open or closed? Probably open, 
but it isn't obvious, and might lose something in a language translation. 
I think date_open=03-01 and date_closed=10-30 would be more clear, for, 
for example the service road into a camping area. Maybe access=seasonal, 
weather_dependent=yes or even access=weather_dependent for the closings 
that are truly dependent on weather conditions and are not tied to a date, 
like some mountain highways.

-- 
Randy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Mike N.]

>If you have
> a look at how bride=yes, access=closed renders 

   It probably should have a marriage=unhappy to cover that case :-)
 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[David ``Smith'']

I fully support keeping "access=*" simple, or at least, not making it
more complicated than it is.  Closed roads and bridges, for whatever
reason*, should be tagged "access=no".

Of course, having additional info would be great.  I suppose
"description=*" would be best for that, as it seems that key's
intention is for the value to be passed directly to the end-user.
Perhaps the slippy map should render the value of "description=*" in
parentheses next to the name on roads, POIs, and other features.
Anyone who can propose a solid idea of how this should work can
suggest it on the trac.  Provide visuals of how it would look, you get
bonus points.  Figure out how to accomplish it in the Mapnik
stylesheet, and then you'll *really* be a superhero.

(*When something closes, make it "access=no".  When/if it re-opens,
use whatever access tags are appropriate.  However, when this happens
repeatedly on the majority of roads in an area, there really should be
a better way to do it.  I'd settle for leaving the access tagging as
representative of its usual "open" state, and add something like
"description=closed in winter" along with whatever tags might be
appropriate for seasonal or periodic closures.)

-- 
David "Smith"
a.k.a. Vid the Kid
a.k.a. Bír'd'in

Does this font make me look fat?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Zeke Farwell wrote:

>>
>> In this case, I'd say the renderer is right.  Both access=private and
>> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
>> explicit approval.  In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
>> from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn
>> differently.
>
>
> I disagree, perhaps access=private and access=no do mean the same thing, but
> in that case access=no is not a good option for a closed bridge.  There are
> two distinct situations:
>
>1. A road/bridge is private and access is only allowed for specified
>users.  Condition of the road is fine, so even if you are not allowed, you
>could choose to break the rules and use the road/bridge as long as there is
>no gate.
>2. A road/bridge is closed because it is unsafe, under construction, or
>impassible.  Even if you are granted access, it would not be desirable to
>use said road/bridge.

Are we trying to create a usable map, or replace common sense?  I
propose we focus on the former.  If we focus on the latter, we'll never
acheive the former.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Randy wrote:

> Zeke Farwell wrote:
>
>>access=seasonal makes sense to me in conjunction with the date_on, and
>>date_off tags on the wiki.
>
> On and off aren't clear to me. Does on mean open or closed? Probably open, 
> but it isn't obvious, and might lose something in a language translation. 
> I think date_open=03-01 and date_closed=10-30 would be more clear, for, 
> for example the service road into a camping area. Maybe access=seasonal, 
> weather_dependent=yes or even access=weather_dependent for the closings 
> that are truly dependent on weather conditions and are not tied to a date, 
> like some mountain highways.

The on and off tags are clear if you don't invent a new, ambiguous tag
like "seasonal" and instead include the actual restriction.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Zeke Farwell wrote:

> The Crown Point bridge is currently closed.  Soon it will be demolished.
>  Then construction on a new one will begin.   Because this is the usual
> cycle, I think the rendering that is used for roads under construction (dashed
> line)
> would make sense for closed roads/bridges as well.  I'l probably tag the
> Crown Point bridge as under construction right now, but tagging for the
> renderer is wrong.  

Demolition would be considered part of construction by most people in
such a context.  Certainly if you ask your DOT about this, they'd call
it a construction zone.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Welty wrote:

> On 12/3/09 11:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer.  I am
>>> thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
>>> connectivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>> i'm going to try out the suggested access=no/description=blahblahblah method
>> see what i think about it.
>>
> and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable 
> from access=private
>
> on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from 
> an existing renderer.
>
> maybe an additional term on access ("access=closed"), so that some 
> future renderer will be
> able to distinguish the different reasons for restricted access.

Don't tag for the renderer.  "no" is unambiguous, "closed" doesn't seem
to have any apparent difference in terms of English definition in this
context.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

David Fawcett wrote:

> I am trying to figure out how to mark up a foot bridge that is closed.
>  The bridge is still standing, but it is gated off because it is
> unsafe.
>
> To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the bridge, like in the case of
> a bridge that has been washed out.  The bridge is still standing, but
> I want to be able to indicate that the path isn't passable.  Is there
> a standard way of marking this up?

bridge=yes
access=no



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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Jeff Barlow wrote:

> Zeke Farwell   wrote:
>
>> There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
>>closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow.  These could be
>>tagged as:
>>
>>closed = Nov-May
>>
>>or
>>
>>closed = yearly
>>closure_dates = Nov-May
>>
>>The hard part would be getting Mapnik to render this information.  It would
>>either have to be smart enough to change to the closed rendering during the
>>specified dates, or have a different rendering for roads that are closed
>>seasonally with the dates indicated after the name.
>
> Out here in the west we have many highways over mountain passes
> that are regularly closed during the winter. On typical paper
> maps there is text along them that says "closed in winter". Seems
> to me we need something similar. 

access=no
date_on=mm-dd-
date_off=mm-dd-

This makes it possible for renderers to add (closed between xxx and yyy)
tags or render them as inaccessable part of the year as appropriate, and
is already established in the wiki and actual usage.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Jeff Barlow wrote:

> Randy   wrote:
>
>>
>>access=seasonal, with a second tag for open or closed dates?
>
> In the case of the mountain passes I have in mind the dates are
> chosen each year by mother nature. 

My experience with the US Forest Service around Mount Hood is that the
dates are set well in advance.  Someone has to close snow gates before
the roads are impassable, after all!



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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Stellan Lagerstrom]

Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> access=no
> date_on=mm-dd-
> date_off=mm-dd-
>   
Note that the date tags format is ISO 8601:
date_on=-MM-DD
not the US-specific
mm-dd-

/Stellan




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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Jeff Barlow]

Paul Johnson   wrote:

>My experience with the US Forest Service around Mount Hood is that the
>dates are set well in advance.

There seems to be no such predictability to the closing and
opening dates of McKenzie Pass for example. ODOT just closes it
when the snow gets too deep. It's closed currently.


There are several passes through the Sierras that CalTrans
handles the same way.

-- 
Later,
Jeff

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Christopher Covington]

On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:06 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Jeff Barlow wrote:
> 
> > Zeke Farwell   wrote:
> >
> >> There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
> >>closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow.  These could be
> >>tagged as:
> >>
> >>closed = Nov-May
> >>
> >>or
> >>
> >>closed = yearly
> >>closure_dates = Nov-May
> >>
> >>The hard part would be getting Mapnik to render this information.  It would
> >>either have to be smart enough to change to the closed rendering during the
> >>specified dates, or have a different rendering for roads that are closed
> >>seasonally with the dates indicated after the name.
> >
> > Out here in the west we have many highways over mountain passes
> > that are regularly closed during the winter. On typical paper
> > maps there is text along them that says "closed in winter". Seems
> > to me we need something similar. 
> 
> access=no
> date_on=mm-dd-
> date_off=mm-dd-

I really think we should expand the meaning of the existing restriction
tag. It was originally made for turn restrictions, and currently
supports hours and days of the week, but there's no reason why it
couldn't also have days of the year. I'd much rather extend the meaning
of an existing tag than have two tags that mean essentially the same
thing.

Chris C.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Christopher Covington  wrote:

>
> I really think we should expand the meaning of the existing restriction
> tag. It was originally made for turn restrictions, and currently
> supports hours and days of the week, but there's no reason why it
> couldn't also have days of the year. I'd much rather extend the meaning
> of an existing tag than have two tags that mean essentially the same
> thing.
>

I agree.  When I suggested "closed=Nov-May" I hadn't seen the existing
date_on and date_off tags.  I didn't know they were made for turn
restrictions though  Lets expand them to include more situations.

Zeke
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Paul Johnson]

Jeff Barlow wrote:

> Paul Johnson   wrote:
>
>>My experience with the US Forest Service around Mount Hood is that the
>>dates are set well in advance.
>
> There seems to be no such predictability to the closing and
> opening dates of McKenzie Pass for example. ODOT just closes it
> when the snow gets too deep. It's closed currently.
> 

ODOT does maintain official dates for closures even if they don't
actually hold to them:  You can't count on the way being open in winter.

> There are several passes through the Sierras that CalTrans
> handles the same way.

California also leaves Siskyou Pass on I5 into Oregon open during
blizzards, forcing Oregon State Police and the national guard to risk
their own lives to rescue drivers on a nearly annual basis. I wouldn't
consider anything California does to be rational, safe, sane, or
worthy of reproduction anywhere. California: Don't Try This at Home.



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