2013/2/2 Christopher Hoess <caho...@gmail.com>: > what should be the values for > the "bridge" tag? > > I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between > "abandoned", "damaged", "removed", etc. as I don't have a > well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is > sufficiently complicated as it stands. It would make renderer support > much simpler if the renderer only needed to parse "bridge=yes" and not > worry about the "bridge:structure" and "bridge:type" tags unless it > wanted to
+1 these are all bridge values with more than 100 occurrences, my comments inline after the percentages: yes 1 656 829 97.79% the very most ✔ null viaduct 24 314 1.44% not sure if we need this, what is the difference to a bridge? It mostly tells that there is a road or railway going over it (what you can already see from the data, as you can see the length) ✔ A ''long'' rail, road, or other bridge made up of many short spans. no 7 572 0.45% hint for other mappers, no special treatment - null suspension 1 319 0.08% -> bridge_structure / bridge:structure ✔ null aqueduct 1 084 0.06% prefer historic=aqueduct for historic aqueducts (also fragments) and would rather introduce a tag similar to "power" for water if I wanted to map modern aqueducts. Anyway an aqueduct has not much to do with bridges - null true 741 0.04% the same as yes - null abandoned 556 0.03% could be an idea to keep these. There is also the alternative way to tag it abandoned:bridge=yes - null swing 525 0.03% -> bridge_type / bridge:type ✔ null culvert 282 0.02% not really a bridge, is it? Isn't this a tube? - null boardwalk maybe not really a bridge, but could be kept IMHO 198 -> bridge_type / bridge:type I agree, looks as if bridge=yes is the only remaining value if we introduce type and structure and prefix abandoned, disused, etc. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging