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" <acr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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 reference for not-UK
>users
>that there specific road sign for this in UK. Mappers should only apply
>this tag if there risk for some category of drivers and not just any
>bridge
>with varying attitude. So be it.
>
>
>2014-08-10 20:14 GMT+04:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
>
>> 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 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 bridge could/should be tagged as a humpback
>(as
>> stated in the wiki[1
>>
><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom>]).
>> There is also a sign for explicitly indicating a "risk of grounding"
>often
>> seen at railway crossings. In the UK it can be made objective by
>linking
>> the use of the tag to the presence of the sign, but then we would
>miss the
>> many bridges which "the average person" would call a hump bridge but
>are
>> not signed as such. I would suggest something like "a bridge
>requiring
>> driving speed to be reduced due to the vertical profile" (i.e. not
>because
>> it is narrow, or some other attribute). Not sure this depends on who
>is
>> driving by the way, the laws of dynamics apply to all of us equally.
>But I
>> agree that calculating whether a particular truck can pass a
>particular
>> bridge is not easy to put into simple tags. It can be rather complex,
>which
>> is why products like [2 <http://www.autopath.co.uk/>] exist. --colin
>[1]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom
>[2]
>> http://www.autopath.co.uk/ On 2014-08-10 15:34, Никита wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> speed reduction or it is me who can drive everywhere at regular
>speed? This
>> is really subjective. 2014-08-10 16:47 GMT+04:00 Yves
><yve...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:yve...@gmail.com>>: 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 <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl <mailto:
>> colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> 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=yes by default. It does not define routing aspects or adds
>any
>> features to end users. In the UK there are warning signs for some
>humpback
>> bridges, and with good reason - if you don't slow down substantially
>from
>> the ambient speed you will be launched into orbit. Therefore they
>should be
>> useful for routers, implying a lower speed on that part of the road.
>> https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120222085933AAsnJiP
>> Some are so "humpy" that a vehicle with a long gap between the axles
>and/or
>> a low ground clearance (e.g. a low-loader) may actually be unable to
>cross
>> the bridge. So I don't think it is right to say that bridge=humpback
>cannot
>> be of value for routing or end users... --colin
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon
>> téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing
>listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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
--
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
