I can see an argument for mapping culverts similar to highway=ford because the single culvert structure can be considered both part of the road way and water way, and generally one real world feature should be one object in OSM.
However, there are some tags that would be context relevant, eg. width=* on the road would be the roadwidth, but on the waterway would be the waterway width (through the culvert). Similar for surface, it might make sense to separately tag the road surface vs surface of the culvert. So here it can be helpful to map the culvert essential separately for each context. I agree that similar to a bridge if there is a weight restriction etc then best to apply that to the way segment of the road, though a node usually would be fine as a first pass of mapping. I know that generally we prefer to only map things which are verifiable on the ground, there is a lot of prior art with non-verifiable things being mapped. Some kinds of admin boundaries, protected area boundaries, wikipedia/wikidata tags. So while I think verifiability is important, I think other non-verifiable things can be looked at case by case, based on what it is, where the data is coming from. For specific examples, it's hard to say without some photos. On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 11:19, Andrew Hughes <ahhug...@gmail.com> 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
