On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. <ricoz....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > > > > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "bridge:movable=*" has at least one > > useful side effect, which I documented, for bridge geeks like me (i.e., > the > > people who are probably going to be adding hyper-complicated bridge > > detail); it lets you tag a formerly or planned movable span that is now > > fixed in place with "bridge:movable=*" but not "bridge=movable". So you > > could search for "bridge:movable=swing" and find both working and fixed > > swing spans, but a router wouldn't treat the fixed ones as movable. (See > > here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck for > the > > relevance of such spans.) > > This may be too subtle for many people and somewhat against the principle > of least surprise. > Good point. I can easily see people "correcting" "bridge=yes" to "bridge=movable" because they see the bridge:movable tag on a span. What if we made "bridge=fixed" a synonym of "bridge=yes"? > > > bridge=covered has been mentioned now and before as possibly redundant to > > "bridge=yes" and "covered=yes". I left it in because of this message: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html > > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-May/013546.html> > which > > suggested that a bridge covered over wasn't quite the same thing as a > > covered bridge. I don't have a strong opinion on changing or keeping it > at > > this point. > > I would be in favor of keeping that one but the problem is - you can't have > covered bridge=movable or aqueduct. I have seen covered aqueducts. I don't think there are any extant covered movable bridges. Re. aqueducts, in what sense was that "covered? A closed pipe? If we retain "bridge=covered" in addition to "covered=yes", I think it should be particular to the "classic" covered bridge where a truss (usually) has been covered to keep out the weather. > > As long as we're simplifying possible values in bridge=, > > "bridge=low_water_crossing", which is somewhat established but a bit > > awkward, could theoretically just be marked by a separate tag, maybe > > "flood_prone=yes". The essential quality we're looking to convey is that > > the bridge is engineered to spend some time underwater and come out > intact. > > those can also look as culverts and it would be nice to have the same > solution > whether it is a bridge or a culvert. I have tagged those with > tunnel=culvert > and ford=yes "flood_prone" might be a little better for both in that I think of a ford as having water more or less perennially covering the crossing, whereas a low water bridge, like a road dipping into an arroyo, is only covered by irregular intervals of high water. Yours, -- Chris
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
