Hi Andrew Thanks for that explanation!
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 12:27, Andrew Hughes <ahhug...@gmail.com> wrote: Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way? > No, not really that I can see!, but ... anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or > heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the > culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road > because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other > culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and > tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established. > Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a > point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This > will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy > & application. > > Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and > that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road. > Currently, at least, tunnel=culvert doesn't render on the road, it only shows as a faint dotted line for the stream / drain passing under the road, so won't be very visible (at least that's how they show in OSMand+ - other nav programs may be different?) Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal > structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater > for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - > typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' > systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other > nicely. > That's likely to be the biggest problem. Where are you getting the weight restriction limits? I've driven over quite a few bridges & culverts, in both built-up & country areas, & very few of them have weight limits posted. If you're accessing external (Govt?) data-bases that have these details listed, do we have permission to use their data in OSM? Wouldn't the thickness of the road surface also need to be taken into account with these calculations? eg there's a culvert here with 10cm of gravel over it, but just over there the same size culvert is 5m down under hard-packed earth & a bitumen roadway. I would think that the only way of establishing something like that would be personal inspection? (unless it's also listed in a data-base?) We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would > greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into > bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing, > being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data > into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible. > I certainly can't argue with you there! Location details that were being passed to the public were shockingly inadequate, & in a lot of cases depended on where a line on a map was drawn, as that will apparently stop a fire in its tracks! :-( I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see > culverts mapped this way. > Sorry, I don't want to come across as anti your idea, because I can see it's advantages, but I think there'll be quite a few issues involved in doing what you want to achieve. Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
