Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

> 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 line sharing a node too if we 
look hard enough for a more difficult example.  Military grounds? Nature 
preserve boundary? 

Why would someone link all that crap together? I doubt they share the exact 
same alignment. Someone mapping at z14 isn't going to map culverts on anything 
- how could you even see anything nor care about it to link all of those things 
together? 

The first order of business isn't mapping culverts, it's cleaning up the 
inadequate mapping. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

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 + 2 tag/values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you are joking, are you? 

actually I may have underestimated the number of clicks substantialy.
I would be curious how you add a culvert with 10 clikcs to a way 
which is shared by a waterway, a mulptipolygon forrest and an
administrative boundary.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

> 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 already not a primary feature of the map. People assume there are culverts/ 
tunnels for everything unless there is a bridge - similar to power-lines over 
the road - no one thinks they have to watch out for the power-lines while 
driving. If a stream intersects and shares a node, it is a ford. Tunnels are 
not single points either. And single point bridges are equally as bad. Adding a 
smaller feature of a drain or stream (if it was a river culvert it should be 
easily mappable as a way) and not taking the time to do it right for the sake 
of a few clicks is not good mapping and should be strongly discouraged. 

Most people just run the road over the stream or drain, no nodes or anything. 
If you are going to take the time to tag a culvert, don't do it "half way" - 
make the  other node and create the culvert as a way under the road. Having a 
slightly inaccurate way position is much better than a hidden culvert node 
under a road way. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

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 don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a way
> you should maybe not map them at all.

the information that you can cross a stream without getting wet is 
significant. Geometric details are often not interesting or available
in sufficient precision.

> 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


Richard



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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 many of them
are you adding? What is the relation between the survey time and the edit
time in JOSM?

Cheers,
Martin


PS: for the single node, you'd have to make a click -> node
then select, unglue (the highway and the waterway).
drag the node to see whether you got the highway or the waterway, in case
of the waterway, hit ctrl+z and select the other node (middle-click),
otherwise, delete the node (from the highway).

if you don't do it like this, you won't have the node below the highway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

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 freeways are still linear ways.
> 
> I dont think we should act like "fix a before we fix b" - We should
> do b and not forget about a.

not saying other things can't be fixed earlier, just pointing out that
there are other important things to improve. 

We already have a way to tag culverts as linear ways, that is fine.
Maybe not for culverts but for many tunnels something like man_made=tunnel 
analog to man_made=bridge seems badly needed.
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.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Florian Lohoff]

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 we fix b" - We should
do b and not forget about a.

We know we dont have street widths and there are people thinking
about mapping streets as areas additionally. This is something very
far away for me. Nevertheless i have quite good Sat or Aerial Imagery
so i can see where the ditch goes underground and where it comes back.
So i map it as this - a small way of tunnel=culvert layer=-1.

When somebody now starts mapping streets as areas hopefully my culvert
is already correct and matches the street sides.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 them at all.
What is the advantage of a node, one click less?

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[André Pirard]

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.
>
>
>
> IMHO, if you don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a
> way you should maybe not map them at all.
> What is the advantage of a node, one click less?
You might get in troubles explaining Osmose or such that a node at a
lower layer is crossing a way.
Especially if there is no node.
If you like small culverts, JOSM is able to make them as small as 1.25
cm (½").

André.



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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Andy Townsend]

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 
only; realistically it's 
"open-whateveryouwanttomapprovidedthatotherpeoplecanverifyit-map" :)


Cheers,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

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 nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
> > node that looks good enough I use that.
> >  On the other hand, I think we make 
> > assumptions about the width of the road based on its 
> > type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> > so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.
> 
> So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
> this fault to all attached objects? 
> 
> We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
> increase them.

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.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

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
> "waterway=stream;layer=-1;tunnel=something". 

With covered I mean ways using covered=yes. Appart of that, ways across dams
share the way with the dam - and the daw is supposed to share a node with
the waterway passing through it.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 the pipe) pipe, normally 
to cross another way (e.g. a road, a subway or another pipe), by applying the 
principle of communicating vessels (i.e. no pumps are needed), like a big 
syphon.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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) - for bridges. You don't need gps reception to 
estimate if a bridge was more like 1m or 5metres long

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert and splitting

[Dave Swarthout]

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 create a bridge or a
section with more or fewer lanes or a different speed limit is a big job
and there is no easy way to automate it. Adding an overlay to sections of
road seems like a wonderful solution similar to the man_made=bridge idea.
Where is your original proposal located?

However, your method of putting an entire waterway at layer=-2 seems a bit
bold and goes against common usage.  It may be convenient but how can you
claim it's correct? The layer entry in the Wiki states:
"

   - Use the smallest suitable layer value. Only use layer=2 for a bridge
   that passes over a feature that is already at level 1; similarly only use
   layer=-2 for a tunnel that passes below another tunnel. For convenience
   some higher values are often locally used/reserved for very long bridges or
   underground networks where it is assumed that they are above/bellow most
   other crossings/objects in the area.

Cheers,
Dave

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Ian Sanders  wrote:

> 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 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 the short one in the middle (or
>> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
>>
>> I keep the stream at layer=-2, I add the culvert in an additional small
>> way segment on top at layer -1 and both are crossing the road which is at
>> layer=0.
>> This keeps the stream at layer=-2 from spring to end, which is perfectly
>> correct and convenient.
>> A Nominatim search of a JOSM selection shows the whole stream and not
>> stupid pieces.
>>
>> I never understood the remark "it is not necessary to not split, one can
>> consolidate splits in relations (easy, isn't it)".  To me, it is "it is not
>> necessary to split".  Why not avoid splits in the first place?
>> The same can be done for bridges which are in fact pieces of concrete
>> under the uninterrupted tarmac foil and not an interruption (split) of the
>> road.
>>
>> 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. Roads, as seen by an editor, Nominatim etc., are kept unsplit but
>> the programs that do not want to deal with the overlay segments can prepare
>> the OSM data by using the overlay ways to split the main ones, discarding
>> them and continue with the same logic as presently.
>> In a second usage, it can avoid a hiking route that is using a main
>> highway over 50m before leaving it to split that main highway.
>>
>> André.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert and splitting

[André Pirard]

  
  
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 the short one in the middle (or 
split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)


I keep the stream at layer=-2, I add the culvert in an additional
small way segment on top at layer -1 and both are crossing the road
which is at layer=0.
This keeps the stream at layer=-2 from spring to end, which is
perfectly correct and convenient.
A Nominatim search of a JOSM selection shows the whole stream and
not stupid pieces.

I never understood the remark "it is not necessary to not split, one
can consolidate splits in relations (easy, isn't it)".  To me, it is
"it is not necessary to split".  Why not avoid splits in the first
place?
The same can be done for bridges which are in fact pieces of
concrete under the uninterrupted tarmac foil and not an interruption
(split) of the road.

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. Roads, as seen by an editor, Nominatim
etc., are kept unsplit but the programs that do not want to deal
with the overlay segments can prepare the OSM data by using the
overlay ways to split the main ones, discarding them and continue
with the same logic as presently.
In a second usage, it can avoid a hiking route that is using a main
highway over 50m before leaving it to split that main highway.


  

  André.

  











  


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert and splitting

[Ian Sanders]

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 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 the short one in the middle (or
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
>
> I keep the stream at layer=-2, I add the culvert in an additional small
> way segment on top at layer -1 and both are crossing the road which is at
> layer=0.
> This keeps the stream at layer=-2 from spring to end, which is perfectly
> correct and convenient.
> A Nominatim search of a JOSM selection shows the whole stream and not
> stupid pieces.
>
> I never understood the remark "it is not necessary to not split, one can
> consolidate splits in relations (easy, isn't it)".  To me, it is "it is not
> necessary to split".  Why not avoid splits in the first place?
> The same can be done for bridges which are in fact pieces of concrete
> under the uninterrupted tarmac foil and not an interruption (split) of the
> road.
>
> 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. Roads, as seen by an editor, Nominatim etc., are kept unsplit but
> the programs that do not want to deal with the overlay segments can prepare
> the OSM data by using the overlay ways to split the main ones, discarding
> them and continue with the same logic as presently.
> In a second usage, it can avoid a hiking route that is using a main
> highway over 50m before leaving it to split that main highway.
>
> André.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] tunnel=culvert

[Ineiev]

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 wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road.

What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
the layer= apply?

> 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.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Florian Lohoff]

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, layer=-1 to the short one in the middle (or 
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
> 
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node, but this is rarely used 
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways) 
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the 
> road. In my eyes it is the same case as with a 

But our model only marks the CENTER of the road not its extent.
So making it a node would mean you have an tunnel= with an extent/length
of near 0 ...

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[johnw]

> 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 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. 


a train in a tunnel doesn’t - so it doesn’t share a node with the road(s) 
above. There is no notice to a driver of subway lines, storm drains, water 
pipes, etc in the road as you drive - why is the culvert a node property of the 
road?  

Water and a road sharing the same node on the same level is called a ford. 

A culvert is a type of tunnel.  Zoom in and make a tiny going across the road 
and tag it as a culvert. 

In general, Tunnels are a property of ways, not nodes. 

Occasionally it is not completely sealed (there is a grate, or just rail ties 
and track), but it none the less has no bearing on the traffic on the track, 
road, or path above it - so it does not share a node with the road/track above 
- just as power lines crossing above do not either. 

It is not a stream that you have to get your car through. 

it is a small tunnel under the road. 

So tag it as a way. tunnels on nodes - especially on shared nodes with roads 
that are not in tunnels seems really really bad. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Georg Feddern]

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 road should notify it.

Maybe because it also often means that there is a

barrier=fence along the road.


In fact I thought that these signs are the explanation for the

use of tunnel=culvert on a node.




please be careful:
A "Düker" is not a normal "culvert"!
At a culvert the water is flowing on the same level in the culvert, 
normally with airy room above water level in the culvert.
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.
The normal road traffic has not to obey these sign - but any street work 
or use (crawling ;) ) at the waterside.


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

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=culvert






Does the pipe have to be below the road? There could be another tunnel below 
the culvert as well.

In any case the pipe and the road are (in real life, and by design) not 
connected and if they share a node it will doubtless lead to all kinds of QA 
complaints.

--colin

On 2015-10-25 10:38, Gerd Petermann wrote:

Hi,

thanks for the feedback. I think tunnel=culvert is special,
my understanding is that it implies that the water goes through
some kind of pipe. So tunnel=culvert on a node
simply implies that the waterway is below the road,
no layer tag is needed.

Gerd

Von: Ineiev <ine...@gnu.org<mailto: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=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 wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
road.

What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
the layer= apply?

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.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

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 good enough I use that.
 On the other hand, I think we make 
assumptions about the width of the road based on its 
type (primary, secondary ,etc),
so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.

Gerd


Von: Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 11:04
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: 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, layer=-1 to the short one in the middle (or
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
>
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node, but this is rarely used
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road. In my eyes it is the same case as with a

But our model only marks the CENTER of the road not its extent.
So making it a node would mean you have an tunnel= with an extent/length
of near 0 ...

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Richard]

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 highway and the railway share the same level.
> 
> +1 
> 
> 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. 

it is not that simple. Ways covered by objects are mapped as having shared nodes
with the object covering them. Pylons connect objects/ways of different layers 
and 
are frequently mapped as nodes.

Nodes and layer are difficult. Usually "layer" on a node does not make 
sense but can be defined to have a special meaning.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Dave Swarthout]

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
should not share any nodes. I map them using tunnel=culvert and the
additional tag of layer=-1. The situation is exactly analogous to when a
waterway flows under a bridge except in this case the bridge gets a layer=1
tag. A railway level crossing is quite different because the two ways do
cross on the same layer. Here tagging a node is correct.

I cannot think of a situation where one would tag a culvert as a node
unless it's to indicate an entrance to a very long, invisible culvert.

My 2 cents.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Georg Feddern 
wrote:

> 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 road should notify it.
>
> Maybe because it also often means that there is a
>
> barrier=fence along the road.
>
>
> In fact I thought that these signs are the explanation for the
>
> use of tunnel=culvert on a node.
>
>
> please be careful:
> A "Düker" is not a normal "culvert"!
> At a culvert the water is flowing on the same level in the culvert,
> normally with airy room above water level in the culvert.
> 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.
> The normal road traffic has not to obey these sign - but any street work
> or use (crawling ;) ) at the waterside.
>
> Georg
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

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 
open air storm drain system. Almost all of this system is concrete U shaped 
sections along fields or roads -  with or without lids depending on its 
proximity to road/foot traffic and cost. They go under roads everywhere, then 
feed into large streams (in larger 3 feet concrete Us) and finally dumped in 
the river (the cost for this even in the most rural areas must be 
astronomical). There are probably 200 culverts in a 1/2 mile-1KM circle around 
my house. I have seen a lot of galvanized ridged piping used for culverts in 
the US (suburban or rural culverts over paved / gravel roads - the frequency is 
less - but unless it is a ford, its basically the same "tunnel".

 Dropped Pin
near 2995 Niisatochō Nikkawa, Kiryū-shi, Gunma-ken 376-0121
https://goo.gl/maps/ANVYKNSXdBn

Two culverts crossing the intersection (grated drains) feeding into a 3ft/1m 
covered stream, whose lid sections form the sidewalk. The water will be 
diverted to flood rice fields further downstream.  Smaller drains along the 
sides of the road feed a tiny rice field reservoir, also crossing under the 
road as a fully buried culvert. 

So a "culvert sidewalk" with 3 culverts at one intersection. None of them are 
ever noticed by the drivers that speed over them. The drains are so plentiful 
here mapping them is very difficult. 

The hazard to drivers here, especially in the mountains and very rural areas, 
Is open topped drains running parallel - not across - the roads. The drains are 
wide enough to catch a tire or a whole. bicycle. 

https://maps.google.com/?q=36.327169,139.289432=en-JP=jp

The drain here is dangerous - but the culvert for it (metal grates) at the 
intersection is not. 

The drain here (by its open nature) shares a level with the road - but thanks 
to the culvert, it does not share the same level at intersections. They share 
no nodes. 

Javbw. 


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi,

thanks for the feedback. I think tunnel=culvert is special,
my understanding is that it implies that the water goes through
some kind of pipe. So tunnel=culvert on a node
simply implies that the waterway is below the road,
no layer tag 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, 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 wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road.

What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
the layer= apply?

> 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.

___
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] tunnel=culvert

[Colin Smale]

 

Does the pipe have to be below the road? There could be another tunnel
below the culvert as well. 

In any case the pipe and the road are (in real life, and by design) not
connected and if they share a node it will doubtless lead to all kinds
of QA complaints. 

--colin 

On 2015-10-25 10:38, Gerd Petermann wrote: 

> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the feedback. I think tunnel=culvert is special,
> my understanding is that it implies that the water goes through
> some kind of pipe. So tunnel=culvert on a node
> simply implies that the waterway is below the road,
> no layer tag 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, 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 wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
>> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
>> road.
> 
> What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would
> the layer= apply?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> ___
> 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] tunnel=culvert

[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 road should notify it.

Maybe because it also often means that there is a

barrier=fence along the road.


In fact I thought that these signs are the explanation for the

use of tunnel=culvert on a node.


Gerd




Von: johnw <jo...@mac.com>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 11:29
An: Tag discussion, 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 this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.

+1

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.


a train in a tunnel doesn't - so it doesn't share a node with the road(s) 
above. There is no notice to a driver of subway lines, storm drains, water 
pipes, etc in the road as you drive - why is the culvert a node property of the 
road?

Water and a road sharing the same node on the same level is called a ford.

A culvert is a type of tunnel.  Zoom in and make a tiny going across the road 
and tag it as a culvert.

In general, Tunnels are a property of ways, not nodes.

Occasionally it is not completely sealed (there is a grate, or just rail ties 
and track), but it none the less has no bearing on the traffic on the track, 
road, or path above it - so it does not share a node with the road/track above 
- just as power lines crossing above do not either.

It is not a stream that you have to get your car through.

it is a small tunnel under the road.

So tag it as a way. tunnels on nodes - especially on shared nodes with roads 
that are not in tunnels seems really really bad.

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

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 the point.


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 "waterway=stream;layer=-1;tunnel=something".  How may share a node 
with something above?  How many don't?


And 
"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_bridge; 
didn't exactly meet a positive reception when it was mentioned here 
previously:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-April/thread.html#17202

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Florian Lohoff]

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 good enough I use that.
>  On the other hand, I think we make 
> assumptions about the width of the road based on its 
> type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.

So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
this fault to all attached objects? 

We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
increase them.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi, 
I want to thank all of you for the input. I think 
it is common sense (now) that tunnel=culvert
should be used on ways only, so I'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 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 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 good enough I use that.
>  On the other hand, I think we make
> assumptions about the width of the road based on its
> type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.

So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
this fault to all attached objects?

We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
increase them.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[Ian Sanders]

Here are some examples of this, just to clarify. I don't see how these
could possibly be mapped as nodes, so I really don't understand what the
debate was in the first place:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/26.53270/-81.75712
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/26.53696/-81.77442
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/26.59305/-81.86069

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I want to thank all of you for the input. I think
> it is common sense (now) that tunnel=culvert
> should be used on ways only, so I'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 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 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 good enough I use that.
> >  On the other hand, I think we make
> > assumptions about the width of the road based on its
> > type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> > so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.
>
> So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
> this fault to all attached objects?
>
> We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
> increase them.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>   We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging