On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one
> > > useful sid
> Il giorno 14/ago/2014, alle ore 17:02, "Richard Z." ha
> scritto:
>
> any good name for such a tag? It should be also good for dips if possible..
maybe "hazard"=* ?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.
On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote:
>> I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
>> to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
>> applied to railroad crossings, humpy b
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote:
> I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
> to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
> applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing
> hilly terrain; all
I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing
hilly terrain; all of these situations can be found in central Ohio. Using
this ta
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:54:11AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess
>
>
> > As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
> > some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
> > the critique a bit
> Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 11:18, "Richard Z." ha
> scritto:
>
> I was thinking maybe bridge:architecture would cover both "bridge:structure"
> and "bridge:geometry" but I guess it is too late to change?
I think bridge structure is fine, for a potential bridge architecture key I
woul
On 13/08/2014 05:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Some people consider freeform values in bridge tag as a problem and
think that bridge tag should have only yes/no values and specific
type of bridge should be stored in a separate tag.
People are entitled to their opinions, but I'd argue that fr
2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess
> As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
> some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
> the critique a bit so I can try to improve things.
>
>
>
Some people consider freeform values in b
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:45PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old
> > National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce
> > spe
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one
> > > useful sid
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
>
>
> > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one
> > useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e.,
> the
> > people wh
Martin,
OK, viaduct boldly fixed on-wiki! Also added some explanatory text to
Key:bridge:structure, overlapping with Key:bridge, as to what a span is and
how to deal with bridges with multiple span types.
--
Chris
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
>
>
> The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old
> National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce
> speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne.
>
> I think rather
> Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 01:55, Christopher Hoess
> ha scritto:
>
> A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to its overall
> length
+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> The wiki says for viaduct
> A bridge composed of a series of short spans. The spans may be arches,
> girders supported by piers, etc.
>
>
> We should remove the word "short", because this is relative and depends on
> the scale an
> Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 18:28, Christopher Hoess
> ha scritto:
>
> the term "viaduct" can be applied to both road and railroad bridges; it isn't
> confined to roads.
+1
> They can't be parceled into "bridge:structure" because they conflict with the
> ability to specify the indi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
Hi,
> As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
> some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
> the critique a bit so I can try to improve things.
my criticism was limi
On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg
>
> looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single
> lane bridge. The speed limiting
On 11 August 2014 17:28, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> I'd like to float another proposal
bridge=pontoon?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/list
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg
looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single
lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might
be that you don't see
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes <
> p...@trigpoint.me.uk> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to
> > routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb
> Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes
> ha scritto:
>
> I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to
> routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging just
> because it is not universally understood Movable in itself co
On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 08:24 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> risk_of_grounding=yes ?
That is one attribute that can be applied to a humpback bridge, level
crossing or even some stretches of road.
The other issues with humpback bridges are risk of taking off, and
hitting oncoming vehicles due to lack
On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 14:10 +0200, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> > On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
> >
> > >I.e they define this tag as subtype of
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
> > >application/use t
risk_of_grounding=yes ?
On Aug 10, 2014 5:14 PM, "Colin Smale" wrote:
> It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
> it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
> opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
> clearly a
Exactly my point. In the UK you can be objective by linking it to the
presence of the sign, other countries may not use a sign. Having
established that such information ("this bridge requires you to slow
down to avoid being launched") may be useful in certain cases, now we
are trying to represen
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
>
> >I.e they define this tag as subtype of
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
> >application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
> >covered
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>
> It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
> it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
> opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
> clearly a diff
On 10/08/2014 10:04, Никита wrote:
I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback?
Shorter Oxford has 'a small bridge with a steep ascent and descent'.
--
Steve
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast
Is there a tag for a non-intended, not speed-enforcing hump on a road?
This can occurs on a railway crossing, or due to the roots of a vigorous tree.
On 10 août 2014 18:24:05 UTC+02:00, "Никита" wrote:
>Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial
>objects
>with purpose of ca
Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects
with purpose of calming traffic.
Back to the topic: "a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to
the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other
attribute)". Is okay definition, but we must add re
It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
clearly a different attribute.
--colin
On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote:
> Can't we
I will be fine with bridge=yes, traffic_calming=humpback. But again, as
Colin Smale said, we will miss unmarked bridges, without signs. barrier=*
is not option here, there no block in any form.
2014-08-10 19:52 GMT+04:00 fly :
> Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrie
Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*?
cu fly
Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale:
> No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole
> world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign,
> which may indicate that a br
No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole
world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign,
which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback
(as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly
indicating a "risk o
I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition.
If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define
this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define "humpiness"
of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without
There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this
is why it is rich.
Yves
On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale wrote:
>On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
>
>> I.e they define this tag as subtype of
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't
On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
I.e they define this tag as subtype of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not
imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or
adds any features
I.e they define this tag as subtype of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge. I don't see any real
application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any
features to end users.
On other hand, bridge=movable
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:04:20PM +0400, Никита wrote:
> I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback?
it was at least among the values of the German and French wiki and in the
proposed values of the Russian and Ukrainian wikis.
<<
bridge=humpback — Bogenbrücke, bei der d
I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback?
PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark "covered" ways. For example
covered bridges.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples
section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.J
Hi,
lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing
in the English wiki, how to add it?
Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge
values?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
44 matches
Mail list logo
