Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Richard wrote: > > a way > which is shared by a waterway, a mulptipolygon forrest and an > administrative boundary. Clean up the inaccurate mapping and then do it the right way. I'm sure you can find an airport boundary, a fence, and a power

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-10-30 19:02 GMT+01:00 Richard : > > > > What is the advantage of a node, one click less? > > > > did you count the clicks? > > node: "n"+ 1 click + 1 tag/value > > way: "n"+2x(click+"p") + "s"+ click

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

> On Oct 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > IMHO, if you don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a way you > should maybe not map them at all. + 1 These are small *culverts* - not bridges or tunnels for a main road - so they are

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:03:15PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard : > > > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have > > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node. > > > > > IMHO, if you

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

2015-10-30 19:02 GMT+01:00 Richard : > > What is the advantage of a node, one click less? > > did you count the clicks? > node: "n"+ 1 click + 1 tag/value > way: "n"+2x(click+"p") + "s"+ click + 2 tag/values I bet you are joking, are you? Even if it was 10 clicks, how

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:56:38PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Richard wrote: > > agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should > > be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with > > sub-meter precission while

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Richard wrote: > agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should > be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with > sub-meter precission while freeways are still linear ways. I dont think we should act like "fix a before

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard : > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node. > IMHO, if you don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a way you should maybe not map

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On 2015-10-29 16:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard >: > > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node. > > > >

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On 25/10/2015 15:06, Richard wrote: agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with sub-meter precission while freeways are still linear ways. I'd respectively disagree with that - this is open-STREET-map in name

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:39:47PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > I don't think that this is a strong point. > > Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the > > length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place > > the

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:13:51AM +, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: > > >it is not that simple. Ways covered by objects are mapped as having shared > >nodes > >with the object covering them. > No, normally they _aren't_ mapped like this. Take a look at any number of >

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

sent from a phone > Am 25.10.2015 um 13:12 schrieb Georg Feddern : > > At a "Düker" the water is "pressured" on a level below the normal water level > through the "Düker", so there is no room above water level. actually a Düker is a piece of U-shaped (section along

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

sent from a phone > Am 25.10.2015 um 12:00 schrieb Richard : > > there is also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_bridge if this was voted I would vote no, because every length estimate is better than no information at all (node) -

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert and splitting

Andre wrote: "I once wrote an OVERLAY suggestion (to be discussed, that I much improved since) that generalizes the principle of an overlay way segment that, in one of its usages, applies tags such as speed limit to a segment of the highway." Now that is an idea I love. Splitting roadways to

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert and splitting

On 2015-10-25 07:44, GerdP wrote : Hi all, up to now I've used tunnel=culvert http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=culvert like this: 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing 2) I split the waterway into 3 parts and add tunnel=yes, layer=-1 to

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert and splitting

Can you send an example of that culvert tagging? Generally the tunnel and bridge tags should be on the way that the tunnel or bridge is made for. On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:08 PM André Pirard wrote: > On 2015-10-25 07:44, GerdP wrote : > > Hi all, > > up to now I've

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Hello, On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote: > Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert > on a node, On the other hand, the wiki "disallows" to use tunnel=* on a node. > but this is rarely used > (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways) > I

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote: > Hi all, > > up to now I've used tunnel=culvert > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=culvert > like this: > 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing > 2) I split the waterway into 3 parts and add > tunnel=yes,

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev wrote: > >> In my eyes it is the same case as with a >> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node). >> Did I miss something? > > In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level. +1 the rail and road

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Hello, Am 25.10.2015 um 11:44 schrieb Gerd Petermann: I do not fully agree here. In Germany, I often see a traffic sign "Vorsicht Düker" (~ "Attention! Culvert") next to these culverts. I am not sure why I should pay attention, but it seems that some people think that the traffic on the

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Hi Colin, good point, I agree that they don't share the node. So I guess the wiki should be changed ? Gerd Von: Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:49 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=c

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

etreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote: > Hi all, > > up to now I've used tunnel=culvert > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=culvert > like this: > 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing > 2) I spli

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 07:29:02PM +0900, johnw wrote: > > > On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev wrote: > > > >> In my eyes it is the same case as with a > >> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node). > >> Did I miss something? > > > > In this case, the

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

I must comment here as I believe those two tags describe a situation quite common in Alaska. Many many smaller waterways cross under a highway in a special large diameter pipe called a culvert. The water flows through the culvert, both are below the roadbed and consequently they do not share or

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Javbw > On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > two tags describe a situation quite common in Alaska. Quite common here too in Japan. The runoff is captured and fed into a feed/drain system to fill rice fields with water, as well as used as a mostly

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

Von: Ineiev <ine...@gnu.org> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:27 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert Hello, On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote: > Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

is needed. > > Gerd > > Von: Ineiev <ine...@gnu.org> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 10:27 > An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert > > Hello, > > On Sat, Oct 24,

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

sion, strategy and related tools Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev <ine...@gnu.org<mailto:ine...@gnu.org>> wrote: In my eyes it is the same case as with a railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node). Did I miss something? In

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On 25/10/2015 10:55, Richard wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 07:29:02PM +0900, johnw wrote: the rail and road share an intersection. it is a level crossing. The whole point of a level crossing is to say “Hey!” the road and train meet here! that’s why they share the node. Which is exactly

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > I don't think that this is a strong point. > Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the > length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place > the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing > node that looks

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

: Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 14:39 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > I don't think that this is a strong point. > Thinking about my o

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

'd be happy to see > the wiki pages changed so that they don't suggest > to use the tag on a node. > Who can do that? > > Gerd > > > Von: Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 14:39 > An: Tag discussi