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 represent that information in OSM. The
reasonable_max_speed would be a start, but if it is accompanied by some
indication of WHY the speed is what it is, like
"reasonable_max_speed:reason=hump_bridge", then everybody could be
happy. OSM is essentially a 2D system. Whereas hazards like sharp bends
can possibly be derived from 2D information, anything significant in the
vertical plane needs all the help it can get, including hump bridges and
steep inclines.
I'm not sure where you are from Richard, but don't you agree a bridge
like this is asking for some special tag?
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg
Same applies as far as I'm concerned for dips and steep hills which
constitute a hazard. As they can't be derived from 2D geometry, let's
find a way of marking them explicitly. There has already been work done
on incline=*:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Incline
--colin
On 2014-08-10 23:28, Richard Z. wrote:
> 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
>> different attribute.
>
> without clear speed limits or hazzard signs it is just a very abstract
> danger of which plenty are more evil than a humpback bridge but not
> tagged in any way.. generations of drivers did drive there.
> We don't tag narrow winding mountain roads with special attributes, nor
> do we expect routing software to deduce that wisdom from road geometry?
> Sometimes I wish we would have something like key:reasonable_max_speed
> but we don't.
>
> So either bridge=humpback is a substitute for key:reasonable_max_speed
> - than we should think about that - or it is more an optical thing which
> could be handled within bridge:structure?
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:05PM +0400, Никита wrote:
>
>> 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)".
>
> very similar danger situation like hazard=dip, some railway crossings and
> any number of similar situations. Would it be worth to have an abstraction
> for that?
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
