Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads. They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land. There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list some time back, although from memory it was more about what constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert. to complicate matters, a culvert may cut through a road in rural australia, making a small ford ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
It seems that culvert=yes is ambiguous. It can be a ford or applied on the road. I'm also in favour to replace culvert=yes by tunnel=culvert, bridge=culvert or ford=culvert It has also the advantage of simplifying the tag management in applications (can just handle tunnel=* or bridge=* or ford=*). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Liz-11 wrote: to complicate matters, a culvert may cut through a road in rural australia, making a small ford I'm not sure what you mean by this. A culvert is a (usually) concrete structure, topologically a cylinder, that one way (usually water) goes through and the other goes over. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5468842.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: So tunnel=culvert :) I liked the definition given here that a tunnel would be bigger and accessible for humans why a culvert would be smaller and just a kind of tube. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/26 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such technical vocabular ? There is a good reason that specialists use specialist language: it is precise. If you could express the same diversity with common language terms there would be no need for special terms. Therefore I welcome the use of precise terms. You will generally have to look things up somewhere (given that this is not done by your editor, in which case it doesn't matter what the tag is), so imho there is no difference. For the specific case of the culvert it might still be imprecise ;-), as it doesn't differentiate between an inverted siphon [1] and a sewer pipe [2]. I'm not sure if I used the exact English terms, to understand the difference please look at the first images here: [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCker [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durchlass Of course this can also be an advantage and be solved by subtagging. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Of course this can also be an advantage and be solved by subtagging. I'm forwarding the discussion on the next mailing list. is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunney=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Friday 27 August 2010 12:50:39 Pieren wrote: I'm forwarding the discussion on the next mailing list. is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use tunney=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the ambivalent culvert=yes ? It seems it is only ambivalent to the four or so people who make the tagging mailing list unreadable. I haven't seen them actually use the tag. The seventy people who used the tag did not have a problem with understanding what they did. bridge=culvert is nonsense: A culvert is not a bridge. ford=culvert is even more insane. There is either a ford or a culvert. It's physically impossible to be both at the same time. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: The seventy people who used the tag did not have a problem with understanding what they did. bridge=culvert is nonsense: A culvert is not a bridge. Again, I'm not a native english speaker but It seems that culvert is also used to designate a bridge. Some quick searches on internet: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Culvert_2_%28PSF%29.png http://www.rommesmo.com/steeltruss.htm or tunnels: http://www.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/culvert.htm You always claim the culver=yes has been used by 70 people. But we also have hundreds of dozen tunnel=yes on waterways which are probably culverts. My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the bridge/ford). At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which do not really care about the difference between tunnel=yes and culvert=yes or pipe=yes or sewer=yes but could deal with tunnel=* (if we recommand tunnel=yes/culvert/pipe/sewer) Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
ford=culvert is even more insane. There is either a ford or a culvert. It's physically impossible to be both at the same time. I said like a ford in the first place. To me the ford crosses a natural waterway, and the culvert is not a natural waterway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the bridge/ford). +1, fine for me. Tag it on the waterway-way. If there is a bridge over it, or a ford etc., tag this on the road as usual. At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which do not really care about the difference between tunnel=yes and culvert=yes or pipe=yes or sewer=yes but could deal with tunnel=* (if we recommand tunnel=yes/culvert/pipe/sewer) yes, but they might have to be careful about culvert=no cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes: It seems that culvert=yes is ambiguous. It can be a ford or applied on the road. I'm also in favour to replace culvert=yes by tunnel=culvert, bridge=culvert or ford=culvertIt has also the advantage of simplifying the tag management in applications (can just handle tunnel=* or bridge=* or ford=*). Pieren And it can also be considered how ofter culvert is needed. Normally, if a ditchcrosses a way it does it through a culvert, at least here in Finland, and everybody knows it without splitting the waterway and adding culverts or layer definitions etc. But for sure there are culverts which are worth having their own tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: t seems that culvert=yes is ambiguous. It can be a ford or applied on the road. I'm also in favour to replace culvert=yes by tunnel=culvert, bridge=culvert or ford=culvert It has also the advantage of simplifying the tag management in applications (can just handle tunnel=* or bridge=* or ford=*). I sounds like a good idea and could be extend later with other kind of tunnel. For bridge and ford i dont really enderstand the concept ; but i'm not (also) natural english speaker... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Some people decided recently and alone to introduce the tag culvert=yes on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:culvert Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such technical vocabular ? Question 3 : between tunnel, covered and culvert, how many additionnal tags are we going to create to designate the exact same thing : the water is under the road ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466616.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
The term culvert is also standard usage in American English. Tunnel is generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to walk through, if not larger. Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as sewer tunnel. A culvert refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff. Some are large enough to walk through, but most aren't. Usually they extend only for a short distance, such as the width of a roadway. Covered does not indicate the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010 Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
This is how I understand culvert, from New Zealand. Although I've rarely heard sewer tunnel, it's just sewer. Tim. On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The term culvert is also standard usage in American English. Tunnel is generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to walk through, if not larger. Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as sewer tunnel. A culvert refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff. Some are large enough to walk through, but most aren't. Usually they extend only for a short distance, such as the width of a roadway. Covered does not indicate the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010 Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Yeah, being in tornado alley the word culvert is frequently used in tornado safety instructions as a last resort shelter if you encounter a tornado on the open road. For example: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=safety-severe-roadsafety Toby On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote: This is how I understand culvert, from New Zealand. Although I've rarely heard sewer tunnel, it's just sewer. Tim. On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The term culvert is also standard usage in American English. Tunnel is generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to walk through, if not larger. Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as sewer tunnel. A culvert refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff. Some are large enough to walk through, but most aren't. Usually they extend only for a short distance, such as the width of a roadway. Covered does not indicate the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010 Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Sewer tunnel would be a description of the largest sewers, containing the merged outflow of many smaller sewers. As you said, frequently these are simply referred to as sewers. I remember watching one large storm-sewer tunnel being built, years ago; it was about seven meters in diameter. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz Date :Thu Aug 26 13:42:50 America/Chicago 2010 This is how I understand culvert, from New Zealand. Although I've rarely heard sewer tunnel, it's just sewer. Tim. On 27 August 2010 06:29, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The term culvert is also standard usage in American English. Tunnel is generally used to mean an underground passageway large enough for a person to walk through, if not larger. Also, the default assumption is that a tunnel is not intended for drainage, unless there is a longer phrase such as sewer tunnel. A culvert refers to a tube or pipe under a roadway or other raised area, meant to carry surface-water runoff. Some are large enough to walk through, but most aren't. Usually they extend only for a short distance, such as the width of a roadway. Covered does not indicate the size of a passageway, nor does it indicate the intended purpose of the passageway. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net Date :Thu Aug 26 13:10:13 America/Chicago 2010 Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Thursday 26 August 2010 19:52:02 Pieren wrote: Some people decided recently Those some people are the Dutch who are active on the OSM forum. As you might know the Netherlands is a very wet country. So we have many culverts in the country. Not surprisingly the Dutch word for such a water carrying pipe below the road is commonly known by average Dutch people and not just Dutch civil engineers. This word is duiker. Plugging this into Google translate [1]. AFAIK how to tag a duiker was first discussed on the Dutch mailinglist over a year ago. The conclusion was that it had to be something with the word culvert. Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts. IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. Afterwards Andy seems to have added culvert to this wiki page [2]. Today there was discussion on the Dutch forum about duikers. Then one of the participants made what was hidden on the Water_features page more visible by giving it its own page. Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597 culvert=yes tags in the database. [1] http://translate.google.nl/#nl|en|duiker [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Water_features#Navigations -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts. IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. I opposed because I though that it was a technical term only known by civil engineers. But go ahead with culvert and sewers, we will see how many applications will use them. Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597 culvert=yes tags in the database. Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Well, the culvert is used where the waterway passes under the roadway. Also, many culverts are located where there is running water only during, or shortly after, a rainstorm, so the ditch or low spot they are intended to drain may well not be marked on the map. As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map, so culverts are likely to be mapped as landmarks for someone using the road or path. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:pier...@gmail.com Date :Thu Aug 26 15:30:11 America/Chicago 2010 On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: Sometime last year on talk or tagging there was discussion about culverts. IIRC you opposed special tagging for them then too. I opposed because I though that it was a technical term only known by civil engineers. But go ahead with culvert and sewers, we will see how many applications will use them. Despite it being hidden so far, there are already 597 culvert=yes tags in the database. Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:30:11 Pieren wrote: Not bad for a hidden tag. The question is to know how many are on the waterway and not on the road and how many different contributors used it. 70 different authors worldwide. There were 4 places worldwide where culvert=yes was used on the same way as a highway tag. I fixed the one in the Netherlands. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:45:58 John F. Eldredge wrote: As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map Really? http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/?zoom=14lat=51.94058lon=5.00546layers=B00 -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads. They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land. I think culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the feature on top or underneath? It may be best to use bridge=culvert and tunnel=culvert instead (the former saying that it's not a true bridge; the latter equivalent to tunnel=yes). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5467745.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads. They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land. There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list some time back, although from memory it was more about what constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads. They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private farm access road under a highway that splits a farmer's land. There was discussion about this sort of thing on the Australian list some time back, although from memory it was more about what constitutes a bridge, I can't fully remember the outcome, but imho anything able to allow something as big as farm machinery or a person to go under a road would be a tunnel not a culvert. So tunnel=culvert :) Here's an example of what I'd call a farm access culvert: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=klayer=ccbll=28.203143,-81.694469panoid=m0xmwF1Hx8Ct09dXPzcRRQcbp=12,193.6,,0,2.84ll=28.203453,-81.694529spn=0.003981,0.0103z=18 The line between bridges and tunnels is not always clear, so you're not going to have well-defined bounds for what a culvert is. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? I understand it to be a passage under a road that isn't big enough for a vehicle - maybe a 0.5m pipe for water, or maybe just big enough for some animals, but a human going through a culvert would be abnormal. Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such technical vocabular ? In my opinion, one of the broken things about OSM is the insistence on making up names and not adopting existing professional terminology. Coming up with names is often about a taxonomy and that requires a fair bit of thought. When a relevant professional community has done this, we should just use their definitions. That doesn't mean we can't give readable explanations. pgpKxZEgLHV8Z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
That is, indeed, a highly detailed map, but since it doesn't show elevation contours (or at least not any visible at maximum zoom from my phone's browser), it would not be classified as a topographical map. By definition, a topographical map shows the three-dimensional topography of an area. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor From :mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl Date :Thu Aug 26 17:40:42 America/Chicago 2010 On Thursday 26 August 2010 22:45:58 John F. Eldredge wrote: As far as I know, we aren't trying to make a full topographical map Really? http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/?zoom=14lat=51.94058lon=5.00546layers=B00 -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
+1 On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? I understand it to be a passage under a road that isn't big enough for a vehicle - maybe a 0.5m pipe for water, or maybe just big enough for some animals, but a human going through a culvert would be abnormal. Question 2 : if not, is it normal that OSM average contributor has to use these technical words just to make the civil engineers happy ? Don't we take the risk to exclude more and more average contributors by adopting such technical vocabular ? In my opinion, one of the broken things about OSM is the insistence on making up names and not adopting existing professional terminology. Coming up with names is often about a taxonomy and that requires a fair bit of thought. When a relevant professional community has done this, we should just use their definitions. That doesn't mean we can't give readable explanations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
