Hi,
lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing
in the English wiki, how to add it?
Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge
values?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback?
PS. Tag covered=yes was proposed to mark "covered" ways. For example
covered bridges.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples
section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.J
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:04:20PM +0400, Никита wrote:
> I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback?
it was at least among the values of the German and French wiki and in the
proposed values of the Russian and Ukrainian wikis.
<<
bridge=humpback — Bogenbrücke, bei der d
I.e they define this tag as subtype of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge. I don't see any real
application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds any
features to end users.
On other hand, bridge=movable
On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
I.e they define this tag as subtype of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not
imply covered=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or
adds any features
There is a lot of things not of interest to the majority of users in OSM, this
is why it is rich.
Yves
On 10 août 2014 12:41:22 UTC+02:00, Colin Smale wrote:
>On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
>
>> I.e they define this tag as subtype of
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't
I'm fine with this tag being used in UK. But I care about it's definition.
If this tag will be interesting only in some territory, why not to define
this tag specific to UK? You didn't answer how we should define "humpiness"
of bridge?.. Is this you who minority and cannot pass this bridge without
Am 09.08.2014 18:06, schrieb Dave F.:
> Hi
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149
>
> I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth
> Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation.
> (checking the history previously they were both
No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole
world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign,
which may indicate that a bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback
(as stated in the wiki[1]). There is also a sign for explicitly
indicating a "risk o
On 09/08/2014 17:06, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149
I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth
Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation.
(checking the history previously they were both highway=pede
Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrier=*?
cu fly
Am 10.08.2014 16:23, schrieb Colin Smale:
> No need to define it as UK-only... such bridges occur across the whole
> world, I am sure. The UK may be unique by having a specific road sign,
> which may indicate that a br
I will be fine with bridge=yes, traffic_calming=humpback. But again, as
Colin Smale said, we will miss unmarked bridges, without signs. barrier=*
is not option here, there no block in any form.
2014-08-10 19:52 GMT+04:00 fly :
> Can't we use traffic_calming=hump for this situation or some barrie
It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
clearly a different attribute.
--colin
On 2014-08-10 17:52, fly wrote:
> Can't we
Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial objects
with purpose of calming traffic.
Back to the topic: "a bridge requiring driving speed to be reduced due to
the vertical profile (i.e. not because it is narrow, or some other
attribute)". Is okay definition, but we must add re
Is there a tag for a non-intended, not speed-enforcing hump on a road?
This can occurs on a railway crossing, or due to the roots of a vigorous tree.
On 10 août 2014 18:24:05 UTC+02:00, "Никита" wrote:
>Yeah, traffic_calming was bad idea too, we use it for artificial
>objects
>with purpose of ca
On 10/08/2014 10:04, Никита wrote:
I don't think so. Can you please define meaning of bridge=humpback?
Shorter Oxford has 'a small bridge with a steep ascent and descent'.
--
Steve
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>
> It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
> it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
> opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
> clearly a diff
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
>
> >I.e they define this tag as subtype of
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
> >application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
> >covered
Exactly my point. In the UK you can be objective by linking it to the
presence of the sign, other countries may not use a sign. Having
established that such information ("this bridge requires you to slow
down to avoid being launched") may be useful in certain cases, now we
are trying to represen
Il giorno 10/ago/2014, alle ore 16:53, SomeoneElse
ha scritto:
>> Hi
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149
>>
>> I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth Bridge:
>> North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. (checking the
20 matches
Mail list logo
