On 30/05/18 02:26, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
I finally got a response on the changeset, thanks for the pointer
Warin. The response unfortunately isn't the clearest explanation of
why fords were added when a ground survey wasn't performed since you
can rarely see culverts from aerial imagery.
> I have only ever mapped what is on the ground. There's always some
way for a path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc. It just
seems a bit trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that
is so small you can jump across it.
@Ian @Warin I definitely don't want to start edit wars which is why
I'm here, and I do see how mapping a culvert/bridge as a node on the
respective way is problematic because it isn't at the
intersection/overlapping of both ways. Glad to hear you too Ian have
run into this exact problem with somewhat trivial culverts/bridges,
exactly as you said that are small enough you could jump over. I
thought others would have weighed in with their opinion, so in lieu of
that, I think I'll just start mapping all culverts by splitting
waterways but only split highways (to reduce mismatching tag pain) for
more significant bridges (maybe anything you couldn't jump across)
unless I'm removing an erroneously mapped ford (and I'll reconsider).
If you 'jump across it' I'd go for ford. Reason ... it is not a bridge,
nor a culvert both of which require infrastructure.
The ford to me give warning that I might get wet feet, and that if
flooded I may have to wait.
So that is the 'best fit' where the crossing has nothing other than what
nature has provided.
Thanks
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
Hi,
Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland
along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot
of the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of
the area. I tried commenting on a changeset
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304>) 2 weeks ago
and again a week ago without a response, they have been active in
that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now
at a loss on how to contact them.
Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.
My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the
fact I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny
culvert or bridge when they are physically so small, however
because they haven't been mapped someone is now incorrectly added
fords. Many of the culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as
small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep
the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in the low
lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber
bridge especially those added for MTB.
The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on
nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords
(many which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and
obviously use a shared node.
I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that
splitting ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way
can get out of sync and get in the way, but removing the
incorrect fords and not putting something in their place irks me.
The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on the highway and
in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream under a
bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared
nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.
Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a
waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other
option I can think of is to add a note to a node of
highway/waterway describing what is there so someone doesn't add
a ford.
OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove
them. Edit wars.
A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.
I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing
details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a
crossing .. the details are not viewable in imagery.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
