2009/11/24 James Ewen <[email protected]>: > 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 >
If you can't map the river, but know its name, Put a stub in with its name on it, at least then we know that "This bridge cross the river X but we don't know what the river X does" which is better than nothing. when someone gets round to mapping the rivers they can then join all the stubs up.... Peter. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
