On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Randy <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the bridge is "permanent", i.e., not likely to be removed by a park > maintenance crew or the next heavy rain, and you are mapping a pathway to > the street, then I would certainly include the bridge, that is, if the > ditch is mapped. If there is nothing mapped for the path to cross, then > (again, in my opinion) there is no need to map the bridge. If a bridge is required to cross the physical barrier, I would show the bridge. It indicates to the observer that there must be some type of physical obstacle to be crossed. Optimally the ditch would be added to the OSM map as well. I map the location of bridges on the highways where they cross the rivers, even though the rivers are not yet mapped. I don't have the time and energy, nor data to be able to map the millions of miles of rivers that are crossed by the highways I have been able to track. We should be importing hydrology data from a government source in the near future here in Canada as well, so in the mean time, I am content to map the bridge even if it looks like the bridge has no purpose currently. I'd say map what you are interested in mapping to the best of you ability, representing what is on the ground as accurately as possible. If you can't or don't want to map the ditch, someone else might come along later and do it. Map what you see... James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
