On 08/12/18 21:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 08/12/2018 10:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I would recommend drawing a separate “way” for the highway. I imagine
that the route taken by vehicles or people walking is a few meters
off of the center of the waterway, and perhaps a little straighter.
If you are coarsest tracing the waterway and road, then the two ways
might share most of their nodes.
Drawing separate ways for highway and waterway but sharing the same
nodes will also lead to problems - there's no way that data consumers
will know that this highway is also a waterway. If you're going to do
that then you'll need to add some other tag to the highway to say "you
may get wet".
My experience:
You may get wet ...once in twenty years.
You will get bogged trying to get to them. Most people set up camp and
wait for the road to dry out.
Local councils usually have fines in place for people that travel on
their roads in wet conditions and damage them... ones I have been told
of were $1000 per vehicle axle but that was many years ago, probable
gone up since then.
(Think of an Australian 'road train' with ~13 axles)
Highways and waterways using exactly the same route is pretty common
where I am in the UK - they're called "long fords" (we don't have many
wadis), and a ford=yes tag allows renderers to process them. I'd
imagine for wadis some other tag (maybe some sort of "hazard"?) would
be more appropriate, but it needs something.
Fords are where the water runs across the road.. not along with it... at
least that is the common situation here.
I do know of one that follows the creek bed for some distance .. and
that one is wet most of the time. And it is a rocky bottom.
It would be nice to be able to tag them -
water frequency, depth?, ?
road 'surface' (once through any water), ?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
