Proposed features/Features/Structures

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Status: Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by: Ben.
Tagging: Cattlegrid/ford/speedbump/ footbridge/bridge/etc=*
Rendered as: undecided


I'm proposing that all the many features (physical obstacles) that I see popping up go under 1 key, 'to be decided'.


<tag k="structure" v="footbridge"/>
<tag k="structure" v="bridge"/>
<tag k="structure" v="horsebridge"/>
<tag k="structure" v="speedbump"/>
<tag k="structure" v="cattle_grid"/>


  • why both bridge and footbridge? shouldn't a footbridge just be a bridge with foot=yes (or car=no)? same for horsebridge....I think speed bump and cattle_grid would do better in Proposed features/barriers --Hawke 02:42, 13 July 2007 (BST)
  • Most of these already exist as highway= nodes on the Map Features page and can be added without breaking a way. Does this proposal add anything new? MikeCollinson 10:31, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  • A post on the Forum brought my attention to this, so I'll update: This proposal is really outdated, and bridge= replaced highway=bridge so that part of the problem is no more. I've removed the section from the proposal that refers to breaking up the way therefore.
  • bridge=yes foot=yes doesn't really imply it's a footbridge, but a bridge that allows people on foot. A footbridge is structurally/visually something different, and I don't think footbridge= is the way to go, as =yes tags make nothing of the tagging key structure. bridge=footbridge(for example) may work though. It seems kinda wrong to add a plank over a stream, and large suspension bridges both just as bridge=yes though, and with something relatively common, its quite inportant to split them up to avoid people identifying there location incorrectly on a map.
  • To Mike Collinson's point: Most of the tags could indeed go under highway= but if anything and everything that links to highways goes under highways, then it somewhat defeats the point of using keys to group similar things and make a well laid out mapping structure, and OSM has moved beyond just roads, and centring things around the roads anyway. There are hundreds of obstacles that appear on or along a highway, and I think it would more tidy to group them. Highway should be for linear routes that are part of the highway. Physical objects that are along it could be better organised separately. Traffic Calming 'obstacles' for example. In the future a person could download a map of the highways and easily filter out the obstacles as a group rather than by listing what to exclude or include from the highway key if they wish (value by value). It also makes it a lot easier to work with when searching in josm/an editor. Note: the proposal is just suggesting the grouping of these similar objects (in terms of mapping); I'd prefer better wording though (the definite 'vales' section of this proposal seems to have been added later by someone else). As for 'barriers', well most of the features I'm suggesting here are not barriers, but rather features, or obstacles, along the highway. Barriers, which sounds similar to border= would be better for perimeters, such as a hedge. The highway group was just sprawling, and is continuing to do so. It has unintuitive values and in some cases unspecific. That is the point of this proposal. Please suggest answers to the overall problem, rather than just commenting on the proposal, as that was/is the emphasis.
  • The 3rd part of the problem is that some features don't fall along the way, and if a node is tagged it has to be assumed that it lies at an default angle relative to the road. (usually adjacent). A gate may be along the way, or it may be to the side of it for example. I think the answer to that is to use feature=(or some agreed key) to tag things the way passes over, and border= to things that lie along the way. So a gate is along a hedgerow, but adjacent to a road. It may also be along a hedgerow which is along a road. In this case I think the hedge would be left:border=hedge, and the gate (on the node) left:border=gate.
  • I have been mapping in this sort of fashion for some time and its been tried and tested and seems to work ok. Ben 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)