Hi All, Thanks everyone for your feedback.
We would like the culvert to be an 'isolated' segment of road for a number of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established. Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy & application. Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road. Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other nicely. We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing, being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible. I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see culverts mapped this way. Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way? Kind regards, --Andrew On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:12, cleary <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for that info. > > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote: > > There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only > > where signposted. > > > > Mark P. > > > > > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think > that is a separate issue. Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as > floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for > that. If so, it should be only where signposted and we should not assume > that every place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to > flooding. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
