RE:Tagging Culverts on Roads
Hi Andrew,
I answer your questions from my personal deep knowledge of the source
system within DOT.
Your questions:
1. All caps, for the VIC:DOT:SN suffix?
Yes the prefixes are all CAPS
2. Sure there is no "GOV" in there? ref:AU:*GOV:*VIC:DOT:SN = ???
I would not have "....SN=????" as there are other relevant prefixes, there
is a restriction of 4 numbers and we have exceeded 10,000 across the state
eg SZ, SB, SC
3. If we had to tag both the structure number and the "structure type"
would this change the convention? Giving something like....
1. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:N=SN12345
2. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:TYPE=Culvert
Yep that looks fine, except the 5 digits, although I might suggest
ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:ID=SN1234
the use of ID instead of N, would be inline with the source
I might take this opportunity to inform the community that the Vic DOT, is
now DTP, Department of Transport and Planning, which has a significant
impact on ex-DOT as we are now going to have the Land Use Victoria as part
of our department and for those who don't know LUV is the state mapping
authority. So whether you want to change those codes above???
The important announcement, relevant to this community, is that both areas,
DOT & LUV, are actively investigating the use of OSM as the foundation for
the geometry making up the state mapping base. We recognise that we will
need to contribute back to the base and such datasets as the above will
ultimately be populated and maintained by the department.
Department of Transport and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap
Wiki
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Department_of_Transport_and_Planning_(Victoria,_Australia)>
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:02 PM <talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads (Andrew Hughes)
> 2. Re: Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears" (Warin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 16:16:48 +1000
> From: Andrew Hughes <ahhug...@gmail.com>
> To: Talk Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads
> Message-ID:
> <
> camvyc1v3xd-wz+sfeujpvats3kz79m2uge87bf8mdz8s-xn...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Phil and Everyone else,
>
> For the structure number, I like the look of...
>
> ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345
>
> Questions...
>
> 1. All caps, for the VIC:DOT:SN suffix?
> 2. Sure there is no "GOV" in there? ref:AU:*GOV:*VIC:DOT:SN = ???
> 3. If we had to tag both the structure number and the "structure type"
> would this change the convention? Giving something like....
> 1. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:N=SN12345
> 2. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:TYPE=Culvert
>
> Many thanks, as always!
> AH
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 13:49, Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> >
> >
> > One way would be by using a ref key
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe even something as long as
> >
> >
> >
> > ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=2252 or maybe
> >
> >
> >
> > ref:AU:VIC:DOT=SN2252
> >
> >
> >
> > On the culvert makes sense to me but given you seem to want it related to
> > the way I will let others chime in on whether it could go on a node on
> the
> > way (similar to the signs we have recently been discussing). Its not
> > something I remember having seen in the past (but I have never looked for
> > any such points)
> >
> >
> >
> > Either way it would be beneficial to at least describe this in the Ozzie
> > roads wiki when its settled, maybe under an infrastructure heading.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers - Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Andrew Hughes <ahhug...@gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 February 2023 1:25 PM
> > *To:* Talk Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am resurrecting this thread after quite a long time of silence. I think
> > it reached an impasse and went down a lot of rabbit holes. But I do need
> to
> > try my best to get resolution on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > To bring it back to life I will ask the question again, hopefully far
> more
> > clarity than I once did in 2020.
> >
> >
> >
> > Pretext: For many, culverts are considered to be road infrastructure
> (they
> > are even owned/managed by Govt. transport departments), while others
> > consider them to be part of the water course. These question(s) below are
> > in the context of those who consider them as road infrastructure. This
> > isn't a question around water courses that tag the culvert because that
> > already has a (good) tagging convention.
> >
> >
> >
> > Context:
> >
> > Given we have more than 50K culvert's
> >
> > And a culvert is considered to be part of the road infrastructure (and/or
> > independently a watercourse)
> >
> > And each culvert has a unique asset/ref identification (example Victorian
> > Dept of Transport, Structure Number == SN2252)
> >
> >
> >
> > Q: How should we create/tag each culvert so that it is (more than just
> > geographically) related to the road (way) including its asset/ref
> > identification?
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's a real world example:
> >
> >
> >
> > The culvert (structure SN2252) as GeoJSON can be seen here...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://geojson.io/#data=data:application/json,%7B%22id%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22Feature%22%2C%22geometry%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22Point%22%2C%22coordinates%22%3A%5B144.291749999897%2C-37.0989999997806%5D%7D%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22LAT%22%3A-37.099%2C%22LONGIT%22%3A144.29175%2C%22Archived%22%3A%22N%22%2C%22OBJECTID%22%3A8626%2C%22CD_DIRECTION%22%3Anull%2C%22ID_STRUCTURE%22%3A%22SN2252%22%2C%22Archived_Reason%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22FEATURE_CROSSED%22%3A%22UN-NAMED%20WATERCOURSE%22%2C%22LOCAL_ROAD_NAME%22%3A%222740%20PYRENEES%20HWY%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_1%22%3A%22%20%22%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_2%22%3Anull%2C%22COLLOQUIAL_NAME_3%22%3Anull%7D%7D
> >
> >
> >
> > The location in OSM is...
> >
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=219077864#map=20/-37.09900/144.29175
> > or the closest node
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190
> > <
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=97560366#map=19/-37.09897/144.29190
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I will leave it at that for now and let people respond with a fresh
> slate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Everyone,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <
> > talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> >
> > On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> >
> > On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> >
> > On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient?
> >
> > That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node
> > vertically separated
> >
> > objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under
> > road on a viaduct.
> >
> >
> >
> > OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways at a
> > singular shared node.
> >
> > In this case you can transition/move between this features.
> >
> > Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert indication
> > separate from the waterway culvert indication?
> >
> > No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.
> >
> >
> >
> > And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM
> > data,
> >
> > there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of
> > culverts.
> >
> >
> >
> > And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as it
> crosses
> > a culvert...
> >
> > maxweight maxwidth tags on road are well known solution for that
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20230209/e717d783/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 20:56:49 +1100
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears"
> Message-ID: <ae7065b4-2ff4-0183-f86b-69d2acd9c...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
>
> On 8/2/23 16:07, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Thanks for the quick responses!
> >
> > Andrew Harvey: traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83 seems better than
> > traffic_sign=AU:R6-22;AU:G9-83? but I can see why you say both would
> > be valid.
> > Q: Let's say there is also another sign "Zombies Ahead" that doesn't
> > have a NTC code at the same location. Would that be separated with a
> > semi-colon? and tagged as.... ?traffic_sign=AU:R6-22,G9-83;Zombies Ahead
> >
> > Graeme, ideally the "7km" is recorded in the tagging... mostly?because
> > some juro's do this so they don't need to place "end of .... signage".
> > But on that subject....
> > Q: lots of signage such as G9-82 (see
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia?) also includes
> > the % slope. This is perhaps similar to the "7km" supplementary
> > information on the sign and perhaps the same convention could apply to
> > both. For example
> >
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-35.05425945999999&lng=138.53492903000006&z=19.9&trafficSign%5B%5D=all&mapStyle=OpenStreetMap&pKey=798881551059257&focus=photo&x=0.49105747415321865&y=0.5517154385592334&zoom=0
> > <
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-35.05425945999999&lng=138.53492903000006&z=19.9&trafficSign%5B%5D=all&mapStyle=OpenStreetMap&pKey=798881551059257&focus=photo&x=0.49105747415321865&y=0.5517154385592334&zoom=0
> >
> >
>
> The '% slope' would be the key 'incline' that can simply be applied to
> the road way.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20230209/9a732549/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 188, Issue 6
> ***************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
