Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[SomeoneElse]

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 driving _over_ an open culvert _on_ a bridge, and thinking that 
the name of the drawing ("The Culvert") referred to the bridge.  It's 
back in the list archives somewhere.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> 
> > 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 should be
> easy to render and it solves some ugly rendering issue.
> 
> Is there a place where someone could take the main style, change it and see
> the difference in rendering? So we could not only open a ticket but also
> provide a patch.

the ticket is already there:
 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436


Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

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 "tagging
> (incorrectly) for the renderer".

the one case I have examined is a clear case of tagging for the renderer.

I can somewhat understand it when someones local landmark bridge doesn't
show up using the correct methods.


Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[John Packer]

> 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]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbridge


2014-08-13 9:09 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. :

> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> >
> > > 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 should be
> > easy to render and it solves some ugly rendering issue.
>
> yes I think it is about time that man_made=bridge is rendered.
>
> > Is there a place where someone could take the main style, change it and
> see
> > the difference in rendering? So we could not only open a ticket but also
> > provide a patch.
>
> have no idea.
>
> Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to
> make it render at all.
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> 
> > 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 should be
> easy to render and it solves some ugly rendering issue.

yes I think it is about time that man_made=bridge is rendered. 

> Is there a place where someone could take the main style, change it and see
> the difference in rendering? So we could not only open a ticket but also
> provide a patch.

have no idea. 

Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to
make it render at all.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 11:26, "Richard Z."  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 of way is _on_ a bridge)

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 12/ago/2014, alle ore 14:02, John Packer  
> 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 it by tagging that other ways are on 
a bridge) we'll need strange tags like bridge_name etc. instead of using 
standard tags (name etc) and we will not know from the data how many bridges 
there are in case of separate parallel ways

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Vonwald]

Hi!

2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :

> 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 should be
easy to render and it solves some ugly rendering issue.

Is there a place where someone could take the main style, change it and see
the difference in rendering? So we could not only open a ticket but also
provide a patch.

Best regards,
Martin


[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=bridge#map
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

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 :
> 
> > 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 in a bridge/viaduct, they are
> > drawn as separate bridges.
> > Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. :
> >
> > 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:
> >> > >
> >> > > 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.
> >>
> >> it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were
> >> quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to "draw" the outline of
> >> the bridge.
> >>
> >> Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix
> >> at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges
> >> instead.
> >>
> >> Richard
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

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:
  https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/877

Not going to add back an outline as area of bridge=drawbridge hack 
for a 5x4m cycle path - that is one of the strangest cases of tagging
for the renderer that I have seen.

I might add man_made=bridge if it would render but I still think that
a bikepath/bridge with a width attribute should render sanely.

Richard



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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

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 the bridge
outline render. 
I have converted a few of them to man_made=bridge but last I looked 
they did not render anyway :(

Anyway, those that I have converted look like
* outline  - man_made_bridge
* way/calceway - bridge=movable + bridge:movable=drawbridge

Better ideas?

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[John Packer]

PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that.


2014-08-12 9:02 GMT-03:00 John Packer :

> 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 in a bridge/viaduct, they are
> drawn as separate bridges.
> Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
>
> 2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. :
>
> 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:
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>>
>> it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were
>> quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to "draw" the outline of
>> the bridge.
>>
>> Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix
>> at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges
>> instead.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> ___
>> 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[John Packer]

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 in a bridge/viaduct, they are
drawn as separate bridges.
Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that.

Cheers,
John


2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. :

> 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:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were
> quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to "draw" the outline of
> the bridge.
>
> Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix
> at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges
> instead.
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> 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.

it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were
quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to "draw" the outline of 
the bridge.

Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix
at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges
instead.

Richard

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

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 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z.  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
> > that most of the illegal values were intended to map this type of
> > structures.
> 
> 
> Do you think "simple_suspension" or "hanging" is better as a type? If not,
> I don't feel strongly about this, but it's a single word and not readily
> confused with "conventional" suspension bridges.

not sure about this,  more opinions? Yet another popular name is 
"rope bridge".

Found one more culprit for the popularity of bridge=swing - a wiki
page tag:bridge:swing exists. It is only a redirect seeing it
from taginfo suggests it is a legal combination.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bridge%3Dswing&redirect=no

I would suggest to speedily delete this redirect? 

Meanwhile I am trying to clean up the localised pages.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Christopher Hoess]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z.  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
> that most of the illegal values were intended to map this type of
> structures.


Do you think "simple_suspension" or "hanging" is better as a type? If not,
I don't feel strongly about this, but it's a single word and not readily
confused with "conventional" suspension bridges.

Yours,

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

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 it more clear that these additional options exist for
> adding detail about bridges. I'm sorry I didn't follow up on this more
> promptly when the proposal closed, but I think the wiki is in pretty good
> shape now. If there's something that needs more detail, let me know.

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 
that most of the illegal values were intended to map this type of
structures.
 

Richard



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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Christopher Hoess]

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 bridges. I'm sorry I didn't follow up on this more
promptly when the proposal closed, but I think the wiki is in pretty good
shape now. If there's something that needs more detail, let me know.

I've also asked for
http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/440 to be
reopened to get proper cartographic support for what's now in the wiki,
including bridge=movable.

Yours,

-- 
Chris Hoess


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> 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  wrote:
>
>> 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:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types
>>
>> > * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension
>>
>> Said proposal also introduces bridge:structure=suspension.
>>
>> So I think the only problem is to get people to use these tags instead
>> of the problematic bridge=swing.
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

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  wrote:

> 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:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types
>
> > * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension
>
> Said proposal also introduces bridge:structure=suspension.
>
> So I think the only problem is to get people to use these tags instead
> of the problematic bridge=swing.
>
> ___
> 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[Tobias Knerr]

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:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types

> * introduce bridge=suspension bridge=simple_suspension

Said proposal also introduces bridge:structure=suspension.

So I think the only problem is to get people to use these tags instead
of the problematic bridge=swing.

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 08/ago/2014 um 11:35 schrieb "Richard Z." :
> 
> 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 discussions on this topic. Movable is 
clearly an attribute that can apply to different bridges types (unless your 
categorization goes: movable / unmovable but this does not seem the case).

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

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" at 
google images there is a lot of people who confuse it, also
native english speakers apparently.

Obviously bridge=swing has a huge confusion potential so looking
for better alternatives.

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


Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

On 7 August 2014 18:35, Martin Koppenhoefer  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 is a completely different kind of typology than other values in
> the bridge key. E.g. the bridge you refer to could also be categorized as
> trough bridge. "aqueduct" and "viaduct" are classifications that refer to
> the way that runs on the bridge,
>

I do not agree: "A *viaduct* is a bridge composed of several small spans"
according to Wikipeda, and that is a construction aspect not a property of
the way on top of the bridge. In that sense Aqueduct and Viaduct are two
different categories (even though the original Latin meaning would point in
your direction, Martin)


>
>
> That's why I propose to use several tags to (potentially) describe
> different aspects like structure, material, etc.
>
> I fully agree with that statement, but there seems to be no common
practice on how to do that

But this is not the original argument of this thread. I think the
distinction between swing and suspension bridge is clear.

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 19:06 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :

> 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, aqueducts will usually also have bridges as parts of them (not all,
some even run underground for instance). Still this is a completely
different kind of typology than other values in the bridge key. E.g. the
bridge you refer to could also be categorized as trough bridge. "aqueduct"
and "viaduct" are classifications that refer to the way that runs on the
bridge, "trough bridge" or "truss bridge" or "arch bridge" refer to the
kind of structural system. There are of course also lots and lots of
subtypes (and mixed types).

That's why I propose to use several tags to (potentially) describe
different aspects like structure, material, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

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 add bridge_type=aqueduct, but this is
redundant, as we have already waterway=canal.



On 7 August 2014 19:06, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > 2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> >
> > 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 objects (area) and
> > then add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe
> > man_made=bridge? and bridge:type? This object could get further
> > attributes so that they can be combined. Current bridge values (the
> > road attribute) are a mess:
> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values
> >
> > viaduct
> > 39 055
> > 1.76%
> > ✔
> > A ''long'' rail,
> > road, or other
> > bridge made up of
> > many short spans.
> > no
> > 6 987
> > 0.32%
> > -
> >
> > suspension
> > 2 035
> > 0.09%
> > ✔
> >
> > aqueduct
> > 1 821
> > 0.08%
> > -
> >
> > abandoned
> > 776
> > 0.04%
> > -
> >
> > culvert
> > 734
> > 0.03%
> > -
> >
> > swing
> >
> >
> >
> > "culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
> > aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there
> > is not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
> > construction and construction material, by shape, by
> > function/features, etc.). See also here for reference:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
> >
> >
>
> 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
>
> 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> 
> 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 objects (area) and
> then add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe
> man_made=bridge? and bridge:type? This object could get further
> attributes so that they can be combined. Current bridge values (the
> road attribute) are a mess:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values
> 
> viaduct
> 39 055
> 1.76%
> ✔
> A ''long'' rail,
> road, or other
> bridge made up of
> many short spans.
> no
> 6 987
> 0.32%
> -
>  
> suspension
> 2 035
> 0.09%
> ✔
>  
> aqueduct
> 1 821
> 0.08%
> -
>  
> abandoned
> 776
> 0.04%
> -
>  
> culvert
> 734
> 0.03%
> -
>  
> swing
> 
> 
> 
> "culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
> aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there
> is not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
> construction and construction material, by shape, by
> function/features, etc.). See also here for reference:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
> 
> 

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

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Volker Schmidt]

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.  wrote:


>
> Those are radically different types of bridges.. comparing
>http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-scariest-bridges/11
>

Suspension

>
>
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tynesidehistory/pictures/swingbridge.jpg
>

Swing in the foreground
(Tied ) Arched in the background

>
>http://structurae.net/structures/bilbao-cable-stayed-swing-bridge
>

Suspension

>
> Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
> would be easily fixable.. just how?
>

there  is no automatic fix that can be applied-

Maybe the wiki needs improving

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bridge
mixes uses and structures.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bridge_types
was supposed to improve the situation but it sems not to be in
widespread use

Volker

>
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> 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 movable vs swing vs swinging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-08-07 17:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :

>
> 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 objects (area) and then
add relevant detail like bridge typology to this. Maybe man_made=bridge?
and bridge:type? This object could get further attributes so that they can
be combined. Current bridge values (the road attribute) are a mess:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bridge#values

viaduct 
39 055
1.76%
✔
A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans.
no 
6 987
0.32%
-

suspension 
2 035
0.09%
✔

aqueduct 
1 821
0.08%
-

abandoned 
776
0.04%
-

culvert 
734
0.03%
-

swing 


"culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), neither is
aqueduct. IMHO we should distinguish between different aspects (there is
not 1 bridge typology, but there are more systems, e.g. by type of
construction and construction material, by shape, by function/features,
etc.). See also here for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges

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

[Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[Richard Z.]

Hi,

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge mentions "swing" bridges without
defining them.

Apparently mappers do totally disagree what "swing" means.. out of our mapped 
bridge=swing 
* about half are small swinging bridges (aka simple suspension, hanging bridges)
* some are swing bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge
* some are high-tech suspension bridges
* some are bridges that would be best defined as bridge=movable according to 
our 
  wiki page

Those are radically different types of bridges.. comparing 
   http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-scariest-bridges/11
with
   
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tynesidehistory/pictures/swingbridge.jpg
or
   http://structurae.net/structures/bilbao-cable-stayed-swing-bridge

Wondering what to do with that? With just 687 objects worldwide the problem
would be easily fixable.. just how?


Richard

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