Seems like it might be better to tag it as man_made=bridge rather than building=*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Friends, > > I was attempting to do some pedestrian routing on the High Line (the > elevated park in NYC, see Wikipedia for background) and noticed some > oddities about how it was mapped on OSM. Quickly, this is a former elevated > train viaduct that has been converted into a popular park in Manhattan. > Since this is a popular area, I thought I'd ask the community first. Things > I've noticed: > > 1. There is a 'building=yes' way for the entire elevated portion, > including many of the supports that hold the platform up. This is pretty > cool, and probably looks neat in 3D. There are some building overlaps, > where the line goes through some buildings. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37054313 > 1a. The building also has the park tagging, which doesn't show up on the > map when tagged to the same way (apparently). > 2. There are two parallel ways on the northern part of the park, one for > the former railway, another for the path. I believe that these should be > merged or at least share points. The former railway IS the pedestrian path, > so no need for parallel ways, right? > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46481094 > 2a. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761607 > 3. Stairs like this should connect to the street. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305761606 > 4. The 'highway=pedestrian' portion is not tagged as a bridge, which it > is, arguably. But then, if the viaduct is a 'building', is it actually a > bridge? I think it should be tagged as a bridge for cartography purposes. > 4a. The 'highway=pedestrian' way does not have a name. The building does, > but that doesn't render well. Named ways should be named, right? > 5. There are several 'highway=pedestrian' areas like this one. Is there a > better tag for open space like this? > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277945794 > 6. Things get really crazy with the building passages. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277885773 > 7. There are a few oddities about the paths extending out from this node, > all these crossing ways are hard to comprehend. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2823299563 > > Local mappers have clearly spent a lot of time on this, anyone have any > feedback about how this could be mapped better, if at all? > > > Best, > > Elliott > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us