Hi Graeme, Thanks for looking at these.
Your layer=-1 / layer=1 suggestion would be very suitable if we were just looking to visualize, however our end goal is to map these in such as way that routing responses will identify all of the assets/structures being traversed (including culverts). I would avoid using a spatial relationship as it is unreliable nor easy to maintain. I should've stated that looking at either of the x2 the (road) ways I used as examples: 783119480 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480> & 27885431 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431> it's not possible to determine that either (specifically) traverses a culvert. Best you can determine on 783119480 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480> is that it traverses a "bridge" of no specific type/structure (bridge=yes). re: splitting 27885431 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431> - only part of the way traverses the culvert. Just like 783119480 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480> iis the traversal of the culvert(s) only. I really didn't want to throw out ideas - because I'm such a novice and there's a high probability that they will be nothing but noise. But it does seem sensible (on the surface - pardon the pun) to use bridge=culvert (like a water course is tagged with tunnel=culvert). There's alternate discussions around using bridge=simple_brunnel (or man_made=culvert) but all have extremely low adoption and seem controversial. Thanks for taking a look, much appreciated. Andrew On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:19, Andrew Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below? >> > > Sorry, got to say that I personally can't see anything "wrong" with either > of them? > >> >> - Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 : >> - *Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?* >> >> It looks like a defined bridge passing over a (probably) storm-water > drain. The road is tagged as a bridge at layer=1. The drain could be tagged > as -1 but I believe that's not strictly necessary. > >> >> - <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677> >> - Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480 >> - Way needs to be split >> - Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with >> tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431 >> - *Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?* >> >> Why does the way need to be split? On imagery, it looks like a road > without a discernible bridge, while the drain runs under it through a > culvert as -1, which seems to be fine? > > Thanks > > Graeme > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
