On 07/08/2014 16:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
culvert isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding),
(on the other part of this)
I'd agree that culvert isn't a type of bridge. I think that some of
the confusion in OSM came from someone finding an old American drawing
of a car
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
what else can I do?
Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more
Hi!
2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
what else can I do?
Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more or less -
consistent way. It provides useful data, is simple to tag, it
Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 14:02, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com
ha scritto:
I believe it's main purpose is to solve a known rendering problem in bridges.
this is not at all limited to rendering, it is a question how to map a bridge -
as long as we don't map it (but only imply
Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 11:26, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com ha
scritto:
There were
quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to draw the outline of
the bridge.
I don't think that's odd but rather the preferable method to map a bridge (as
opposed to map that a piece
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
what else can I do?
Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more
Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to
make it render at all.
Note that bridges that are buildings actually exist. [1]
But adding building=* to a bridge when it's not the case would be tagging
(incorrectly) for the renderer.
[1]:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:25:33AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to
make it render at all.
Note that bridges that are buildings actually exist. [1]
But adding building=* to a bridge when it's not the case would be
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
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:
Richard,
Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related
to this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge
I believe it's main purpose is to solve a known rendering problem in
bridges.
Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are
PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that.
2014-08-12 9:02 GMT-03:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com:
Richard,
Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is
related to this proposal:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:02:39AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
Richard,
Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related
to this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge
yes, I am pretty sure it was a desperate attempt to make
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that.
I have removed the area around this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25397414
and filed this ticket as it did not render sanely:
another lamentable attempt is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241772803
what else can I do?
Richard
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that.
2014-08-12 9:02 GMT-03:00 John Packer
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
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
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
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:10:26PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
Volker,
There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional
bridge:... keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page
somewhat to make
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
thanks, that looks much better now.
Would it be fine to add the simple_suspension type
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge)
to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure ? It appears
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
thanks, that looks much better now.
Would it be fine to add the simple_suspension type
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge)
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Good old Wiipedia helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_bridge
wikipedia is clear on that but if you look at swing bridge
Am 08/ago/2014 um 11:35 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
My idea was
* abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide
subtyping if someone really needed it.
* introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension
I suggest to also look at previous
On 08.08.2014 11:35, Richard Z. wrote:
My idea was
* abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide
subtyping if someone really needed it.
We already have an approved proposal that provides this subtyping:
agreed
That means producing a revised bridge wiki page that combines all info.
Who does the work?
:-(
On 8 August 2014 13:07, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 08.08.2014 11:35, Richard Z. wrote:
My idea was
* abandon bridge=swing in favor of bridge=movable which could provide
Volker,
There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional
bridge:... keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page
somewhat to make it more clear that these additional options exist for
adding detail about
2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
would be easily fixable.. just how?
I think tagging the type of bridge as road attribute might be an
exxageration. We should start mapping bridges as
Good old Wiipedia helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_bridge
On 7 August 2014 17:25, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
Those are radically different types of bridges.. comparing
Yes. That is a navigable aqueduct bridge.
It is a structurally a viaduct with an aqueduct function on top. So how to
map these two orthogonal properties of this bridge? I would map this as
waterway=canal, bridge=viaduct, boat=yes, layer=x exactly as we do for a
road bridge. If you want you can
2014-08-07 19:06 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
An aqueduct is definitely a type of bridge, i.e. one carrying a
waterway, usually a canal over a road, river or valley.
The most famous, and scariest of them all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontcysyllte_Aqueduct
yes,
On 7 August 2014 18:35, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, aqueducts will usually also have bridges as parts of them (not all,
some even run underground for instance).
Not true. In California the aqueducts look like navigable canals, but carry
drinking water.
Still this
29 matches
Mail list logo
