Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Christopher Hoess]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse 
wrote:

> For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's
> worth mentioning that there's some "non-survey-based" editing going on:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099
>
>
All "bridge=drawbridge" to "bridge=movable bridge:movable=drawbridge". The
bigger problem is that many of these bridges, whether originally tagged by
local surveyors or not, are probably strictly speaking bascule bridges,
"drawbridge" being used casually for any sort of movable bridge.

-- 
Chris
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Christopher Hoess]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z.  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
>
>
> > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one
> > useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e.,
> the
> > people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge
> > detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now
> > fixed in place with "bridge:movable=*" but not "bridge=movable". So you
> > could search for "bridge:movable=swing" and find both working and fixed
> > swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See
> > here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for
> the
> > relevance of such spans.)
>
> This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle
> of least surprise.
>

Good point. I can easily see people "correcting" "bridge=yes" to
"bridge=movable" because they see the bridge:movable tag on a span. What if
we made "bridge=fixed" a synonym of "bridge=yes"?


>
> > bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to
> > "bridge=yes" and "covered=yes". I left it in because of this message:
> >  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html
> > 
> which
> > suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a
> > covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it
> at
> > this point.
>
> I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have
> covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts.


I don't think there are any extant covered movable bridges. Re. aqueducts,
in what sense was that "covered? A closed pipe? If we retain
"bridge=covered" in addition to "covered=yes", I think it should be
particular to the "classic" covered bridge where a truss (usually) has been
covered to keep out the weather.


> > As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=,
> > "bridge=low_water_crossing", which is somewhat established but a bit
> > awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe
> > "flood_prone=yes". The essential quality we're looking to convey is that
> > the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out
> intact.
>
> those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same
> solution
> whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with
> tunnel=culvert
> and ford=yes


"flood_prone" might be a little better for both in that I think of a ford
as having water more or less perennially covering the crossing, whereas a
low water bridge, like a road dipping into an arroyo, is only covered by
irregular intervals of high water.

 Yours,

-- 
Chris
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Christopher Hoess]

Martin,

OK, viaduct boldly fixed on-wiki! Also added some explanatory text to
Key:bridge:structure, overlapping with Key:bridge, as to what a span is and
how to deal with bridges with multiple span types.

-- 
Chris


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> > Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 01:55, Christopher Hoess <
> caho...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to its
> overall length
>
>
> +1
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Christopher Hoess]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
>
>
> The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old
> National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce
> speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne.
>
> I think rather that bridge:structure=humpback I'd prefer
> bridge:geometry=humpback. At least something that conveys shape meaning.
> For me structure implies the design element that gives a building, bridge,
> dam, etc. its strength. In the case of the photo that would be masonry arch
> for structure.
>
>
+1. "Humpback" seems mostly to be defined by the aesthetic effect and the
potential effect on vehicles; there seems to be a popular "Humpback Bridge"
on Virginia that's a covered truss with a mild humpback. I'd rather not
dilute the more or less coherent nature of "bridge:structure=", although
better that than "bridge=". Although tagging it as some sort of highway
hazard or condition is not a bad idea either.

-- 
Chris
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] horse=designated for recommend routes?

[fly]

Am 11.08.2014 13:44, schrieb Simon Poole:
> 
> Unluckily http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> includes
> 
> "or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most
> jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are
> recommended and signed as such.) "
> 
> Which I personally consider a holdover from days long past which has
> been replaced by actually mapping routes (which clearly do have a
> "recommended" character). Naturally adding *=offical (which is
> essentially a German tag), hasn't made the confusion any less.

Especially, as official was/is not supported by a lot of software and as
the author of the proposal did step back.

Myself did change quite a lot back to designated as other mappers did
already revert parts of my changes.

cu fly

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 01:55, Christopher Hoess  
> ha scritto:
> 
> A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to its overall 
> length


+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[SomeoneElse]

For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's 
worth mentioning that there's some "non-survey-based" editing going on:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099

Cheers,

Andu


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Christopher Hoess]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
>
> The wiki says for viaduct
> A bridge composed of a series of short spans. The spans may be arches,
> girders supported by piers, etc.
>
>
> We should remove the word "short", because this is relative and depends on
> the scale and design. A famous example is in France:
>
> http://www.fosterandpartners.com/m/projects/millau-viaduct/images/gallery/
>
>
Well, dictionary.com offers "a bridge for carrying a road, railroad, etc.,
over a valley or the like, consisting of a number of short spans", but I
agree with you in practice that the spans don't necessarily have to be
short, just that there have to be a reasonable number of something. I don't
think there's really a hard definition for what a viaduct is; it's a matter
of having a certain gestalt.

What about "A bridge composed of a series of spans, often short relative to
its overall length" as a definition?

Yours,

-- 
Chris
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 18:28, Christopher Hoess  
> ha scritto:
> 
> the term "viaduct" can be applied to both road and railroad bridges; it isn't 
> confined to roads.


+1


> They can't be parceled into "bridge:structure" because they conflict with the 
> ability to specify the individual spans (e.g., an arch viaduct), but these 
> would be a good target for moving into a subtag. "bridge=viaduct" has a lot 
> of existing uses because of renderer support.


The wiki says for viaduct
A bridge composed of a series of short spans. The spans may be arches, girders 
supported by piers, etc.


We should remove the word "short", because this is relative and depends on the 
scale and design. A famous example is in France:

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/m/projects/millau-viaduct/images/gallery/

Cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Richard Z.]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:

Hi,

> As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
> some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
> the critique a bit so I can try to improve things.

my criticism was limited to the slight redundancy of 
   bridge=movable + bridge:movable

One minor issues with the description, Key:bridge:structure says "describe 
the load-bearing architecture of individual bridge spans". This meaning of 
"span" may not be well known for folks who are not bridge experts and not 
native english speakers. Perhaps "sections" or "segments" could be added in 
brackets for explanation. 

> I don't see how using bridge=movable constitutes "dumb-down" tagging; all
> I've done is move the many different possible values to "bridge:movable". I
> think this is an excellent arrangement, because movable bridges seem to
> stimulate engineering ingenuity: there are many different types, and I do
> not feel confident that we can build a comprehensive list of them. In
> practice, we will need to accept occasional user-defined values for types
> of movable bridges, but we can't show bridge rendering for an open-ended
> set of values ("bridge=*") because many user-defined values indicate the
> bridge is not functional. Moving them into this subtag seems like an
> excellent way to balance tagging expressiveness with usability.

agree.
 
> Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one
> useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the
> people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge
> detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now
> fixed in place with "bridge:movable=*" but not "bridge=movable". So you
> could search for "bridge:movable=swing" and find both working and fixed
> swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See
> here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the
> relevance of such spans.)

This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle
of least surprise.
 
> bridge=aqueduct has longstanding usage, but could probably be dispensed
> with. The fact that the bridge is applied to a canal or waterway tells us
> it's an aqueduct. (For the same reason, we don't need an explicit tag for
> footbridges; that's determined by the way crossing it plus restrictions.)
> The main argument I can think of for retaining it would be drained
> aqueducts from defunct canals, which there's no *de jure* official way to
> tag. Any thoughts from frequent waterway/canal mappers?

it is probably good to keep that one as I have seen plenty of defunct canals
going over aqueducts.


> bridge=cantilever, trestle, and viaduct form a natural group of some kind.
> I don't have a single word to easily sum them up, but they all have to do
> with the way in which multiple spans of the bridge are arranged and
> supported. Note that as far as I know, in both American and British
> English, the term "viaduct" can be applied to both road and railroad
> bridges; it isn't confined to roads. They can't be parceled into
> "bridge:structure" because they conflict with the ability to specify the
> individual spans (e.g., an arch viaduct), but these would be a good target
> for moving into a subtag. "bridge=viaduct" has a lot of existing uses
> because of renderer support.

the trestle is something that doesn't fit into bridge:structure well, but
bridge=trestle doesn't describe it terribly well either, so some subtag
describing the average width and technical details might be a good idea.

 
> bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to
> "bridge=yes" and "covered=yes". I left it in because of this message:
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html
>  which
> suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a
> covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it at
> this point.

I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have
covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts.
 
> As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=,
> "bridge=low_water_crossing", which is somewhat established but a bit
> awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe
> "flood_prone=yes". The essential quality we're looking to convey is that
> the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out intact.

those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same solution
whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with tunnel=culvert
and ford=yes

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Tod Fitch]

On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Richard Z. wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg 
> 
> looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single 
> lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might 
> be that you don't see far enough?
> 
> But using bridge=humpback to imply a hazard may not be such a good 
> idea, will American tourists be familiar with the dangers of humpback 
> bridges?
> 
> Instead we could describe the hazards as visibility, bump, dip, and 
> narrow single lane with higher chances of universal usability.
> 
> We could also use reasonable_max_speed (per vehicle category) or
> do both.
> 
> Hence I am now inclined to tag humpback bridges as 
>  bridge=yes + bridge:structure=humpback
> 
> Richard

The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old 
National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce 
speed on one of those to avoid bottoming out or becoming airborne.

I think rather that bridge:structure=humpback I'd prefer 
bridge:geometry=humpback. At least something that conveys shape meaning. For me 
structure implies the design element that gives a building, bridge, dam, etc. 
its strength. In the case of the photo that would be masonry arch for structure.

For what it is worth, in the Southwest of the United States there were, and 
still remain, the reverse geometry in the form of "dips" where a road crosses a 
normally dry water course. Since the is usually only water in them an hour or 
so a year it used to be deemed too expensive to put in proper bridges or 
culverts. They are generally signed with a "dip" warning sign and you can 
certainly get airborne or bottom out on those too.

I wonder if a tagging that specifies a rapid change in grade on a road way 
might be better than a bridge specific tag. Then one set of tags could be used 
for both sets of situations. Might make it easier on the data consumers. Maybe 
highway:elevation_change=yes.

-Tod
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Andy Mabbett]

On 11 August 2014 17:28, Christopher Hoess  wrote:

> I'd like to float another proposal

bridge=pontoon?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Richard Z.]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
 
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg 

looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single 
lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might 
be that you don't see far enough?

But using bridge=humpback to imply a hazard may not be such a good 
idea, will American tourists be familiar with the dangers of humpback 
bridges?

Instead we could describe the hazards as visibility, bump, dip, and 
narrow single lane with higher chances of universal usability.

We could also use reasonable_max_speed (per vehicle category) or
do both.

Hence I am now inclined to tag humpback bridges as 
  bridge=yes + bridge:structure=humpback

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Christopher Hoess]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Richard Z.  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes <
> p...@trigpoint.me.uk> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only
> useful to
> > > routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down
> tagging just
> > > because it is not universally understood  Movable in itself could mean
> many
> > > things, lifting, swing or even transporter.
> >
> >
> > +1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an
> improvement because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still
> lacks some consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being
> "movable" which I'd not set as primary bridge value.
>
> I would also think that bridge=movable is not needed given bridge:movable.
> But is it worth the trouble changing it? I am not against it... but enough
> work around:)
> Bridge=trestle would be a much clearer candidate to remove from the primary
> values table.. whoever knows how it got there.
>
> What is imho much more important is to decide that the primary bridge
> values
> should not be further extended without *very* good reasons and the existing
> system used as far as possible.
> Currently http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Values seems
> suggests
> that anyone should freely invent his own types (bottom of table).


As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
the critique a bit so I can try to improve things.

I don't see how using bridge=movable constitutes "dumb-down" tagging; all
I've done is move the many different possible values to "bridge:movable". I
think this is an excellent arrangement, because movable bridges seem to
stimulate engineering ingenuity: there are many different types, and I do
not feel confident that we can build a comprehensive list of them. In
practice, we will need to accept occasional user-defined values for types
of movable bridges, but we can't show bridge rendering for an open-ended
set of values ("bridge=*") because many user-defined values indicate the
bridge is not functional. Moving them into this subtag seems like an
excellent way to balance tagging expressiveness with usability.

Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one
useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., the
people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge
detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now
fixed in place with "bridge:movable=*" but not "bridge=movable". So you
could search for "bridge:movable=swing" and find both working and fixed
swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for the
relevance of such spans.)

The table of values for "bridge=" is something of a hodgepodge, reflecting
common uses in taginfo that didn't fit into the subkeys; what's common in
taginfo, in turn, basically represents what people built into the renderers
and editing tools. Since I was already proposing to replace
"bridge=suspension" with "bridge:structure=suspension", I didn't want to go
much further in turning existing practice upside-down.

Some thoughts:

bridge=aqueduct has longstanding usage, but could probably be dispensed
with. The fact that the bridge is applied to a canal or waterway tells us
it's an aqueduct. (For the same reason, we don't need an explicit tag for
footbridges; that's determined by the way crossing it plus restrictions.)
The main argument I can think of for retaining it would be drained
aqueducts from defunct canals, which there's no *de jure* official way to
tag. Any thoughts from frequent waterway/canal mappers?

bridge=boardwalk can be dispensed with; Alv pointed out after voting
already started that it's redundant to duckboard=yes.

bridge=cantilever, trestle, and viaduct form a natural group of some kind.
I don't have a single word to easily sum them up, but they all have to do
with the way in which multiple spans of the bridge are arranged and
supported. Note that as far as I know, in both American and British
English, the term "viaduct" can be applied to both road and railroad
bridges; it isn't confined to roads. They can't be parceled into
"bridge:structure" because they conflict with the ability to specify the
individual spans (e.g., an arch viaduct), but these would be a good target
for moving into a subtag. "bridge=viaduct" has a lot of existing uses
because of renderer support.

bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to
"bridge=yes" and "covered=yes". I left it in because of this message:
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html
 which
su

Re: [Tagging] horse=designated for recommend routes?

[Simon Poole]

Unluckily http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
includes

"or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most
jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are
recommended and signed as such.) "

Which I personally consider a holdover from days long past which has
been replaced by actually mapping routes (which clearly do have a
"recommended" character). Naturally adding *=offical (which is
essentially a German tag), hasn't made the confusion any less.

Simon



Am 11.08.2014 13:27, schrieb Martin Vonwald:
> Hi!
> 
> The wiki article about horseback riding was just updated:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Riding&diff=1072292&oldid=872941
> 
> Since when is "designated" used for recommend routes?
> 
> regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Richard Z.]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> > Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes  
> > ha scritto:
> > 
> > I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to 
> > routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging 
> > just
> > because it is not universally understood  Movable in itself could mean many 
> > things, lifting, swing or even transporter.
> 
> 
> +1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an improvement 
> because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still lacks some 
> consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being "movable" which I'd 
> not set as primary bridge value.

I would also think that bridge=movable is not needed given bridge:movable.
But is it worth the trouble changing it? I am not against it... but enough
work around:)
Bridge=trestle would be a much clearer candidate to remove from the primary 
values table.. whoever knows how it got there.

What is imho much more important is to decide that the primary bridge values 
should not be further extended without *very* good reasons and the existing
system used as far as possible.
Currently http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Values seems suggests
that anyone should freely invent his own types (bottom of table).

Richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] horse=designated for recommend routes?

[Martin Vonwald]

Hi!

The wiki article about horseback riding was just updated:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Riding&diff=1072292&oldid=872941

Since when is "designated" used for recommend routes?

regards,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes  
> ha scritto:
> 
> I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to 
> routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging just
> because it is not universally understood  Movable in itself could mean many 
> things, lifting, swing or even transporter.


+1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an improvement 
because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still lacks some 
consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being "movable" which I'd 
not set as primary bridge value.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 08:24 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> risk_of_grounding=yes ?

That is one attribute that can be applied to a humpback bridge, level
crossing or even some stretches of road.

The other issues with humpback bridges are risk of taking off, and
hitting oncoming vehicles due to lack of visibility.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> On Aug 10, 2014 5:14 PM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:
> It is neither constructed with the intention of calming
> traffic, nor is it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge
> is usually exactly the opposite!) Let us not be afraid of
> using a different tag for what is clearly a different
> attribute.
> 
> --colin
> 
>  
> On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote:
> 
> > Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some 
> barrier=*?
> > 
> > cu fly
> > 
> > Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale:
> > > No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur
> > > across the whole world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by
> > > having a specific road sign, which may indicate that a
> > > bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as stated in
> > > the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly
> > > indicating a "risk of grounding" often seen at railway
> > > crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking
> > > the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then
> > > we would miss the many bridges which "the average person"
> > > would call a hump bridge but are not signed as such. I
> > > would suggest something like "a bridge requiring driving
> > > speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile" (i.e. not
> > > because it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure
> > > this depends on who is driving by the way, the laws of
> > > dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I agree that
> > > calculating whether a particular truck can pass a
> > > particular bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It
> > > can be rather complex, which is why products like [2]
> > > exist. --colin [1]
> > > 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2] 
> http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote: 
> > > > I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care
> > > > about it's definition. If this tag will be interesting
> > > > only in some territory, why not to define this tag
> > > > specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define
> > > > "humpiness" of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and
> > > > cannot pass this bridge without speed reduction or it is
> > > > me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This is
> > > > really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves
> > > > mailto:yve...@gmail.com>>: There is a
> > > > lot of things not of interest to the majority of users
> > > > in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014
> > > > 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale  > > > > wrote: On 2014-08-10
> > > > 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e they define this tag as subtype
> > > > of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't
> > > > see any real application/use to bridge=humpback. Also,
> > > > bridge=humpback does not imply covered=yes by default.
> > > > It does not define routing aspects or adds any features
> > > > to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some
> > > > humpback bridges, and with good reason - if you don't
> > > > slow down substantially from the ambient speed you will
> > > > be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful
> > > > for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the
> > > > road.
> > > > 
> https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP Some 
> are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or a low 
> ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross the 
> bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of 
> value for routing or end users... --colin 
>  
> Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>  
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone 
> Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. 
> ___ Tagging mailing list 
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> ___ Tagging mailing list 
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 14:10 +0200, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> > On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
> > 
> > >I.e they define this tag as subtype of
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
> > >application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
> > >covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any
> > >features to end users.
> > 
> > In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback bridges, and with good
> > reason - if you don't slow down substantially from the ambient speed you
> > will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be useful for routers,
> > implying a lower speed on that part of the road.
> > 
> > https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP
> > 
> > Some are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or
> > a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross
> > the bridge.
> > 
> > So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot be of value
> > for routing or end users...
> 
> that is true, but shouldn't the routing sw be able to evaluate 
> bridge:structure
> and bridge:movable as well?
> The intention was to add swinging rope bridges as a value of bridge:structure 
> and
> those may be relevant for routing as well

A movable bridge is certainly something that can add a time penalty for
routing, it is something that is probably not so easy to predict, most
of the time there is no penalty but at times this could be quite
significant, in the same way as a level-crossing, most of the time there is
no delay but if you meet a train then it can be long. I guess routers could 
take account of the timetable, I certainly try to avoid the local crossing 
when a stopping train is due. 

I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to 
routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging just
because it is not universally understood  Movable in itself could mean many 
things, lifting, swing or even transporter.

The other speed penalty with humpback bridges is visibility, often more than 
walking pace can potentially result in a head on collision. 

Phil (trigpoint)



 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

[Andy Mabbett]

risk_of_grounding=yes ?
On Aug 10, 2014 5:14 PM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:

>  It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
> it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
> opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
> clearly a different attribute.
>
> --colin
>
>
> On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote:
>
> Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*?
>
> cu fly
>
> Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole
> world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign,
> which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback (as
> stated in the wiki[1
> ]).
> There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a "risk of grounding" often
> seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by linking
> the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would miss the
> many bridges which "the average person" would call a hump bridge but are
> not signed as such. I would suggest something like "a bridge requiring
> driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile" (i.e. not because
> it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who is
> driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally. But I
> agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a particular
> bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex, which
> is why products like [2 ] exist. --colin [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom [2]
> http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote:
>
> I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition.
> If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define
> this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define "humpiness"
> of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without
> speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular speed? This
> is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves  >: There is a lot of things not of interest to
> the majority of users in OSM, this is why it is rich. Yves On 10 août 2014
> 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale  colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote: On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: I.e
> they define this tag as subtype of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
> application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
> covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any
> features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some humpback
> bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially from
> the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they should be
> useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road.
> https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP
> Some are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles and/or
> a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to cross
> the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback cannot
> be of value for routing or end users... --colin
> 
> Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org  Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon
> téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
> ___ Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___ Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___ Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging