I agree with tagging any section of road with speed limits or weight limits where applicable. I have been driving on Australian roads for many years and, while I have seen bridges or sections of roads signposted as being subject to speed or weight limits, I do not recall ever seeing a few metres of road over a culvert with such limits.
If there are signposted limits, I support tagging the appropriate section of road. However, I would not support non-verifiable limits being added to OSM. If a section of road is subject to signposted limits, I think it would apply to a length of road longer than the short distance over a culvert so that the road limits would be mapped separately from the tunnel=culvert which is part of the waterway. While it is a matter for judgement in each case, waterways in culverts would usually be layer=-1 so that the road does not need to have a layer tag. Where the level of a road is elevated to cross a waterway, then it may be appropriate to add layer=1 but this would depend on survey or street-level imagery and unlikely to be determined from satellite imagery. In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a separate issue. Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Hi All, > > Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping > out Culverts on (way/highway) roads. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert > > The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage > and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a > bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have > conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during > natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). *Note - tagging should be > on the way, not on a node.* > > This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a > conclusion > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section > > From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. > river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where > water traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many > scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage. > > We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure. > > Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below? > * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 : > * _*Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*_ > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677> > * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480 > * Way needs to be split > * Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with > tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431 > * _*Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*_ > We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's > important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons. > > Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses. > Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
