Talk:Proposed features/bridge

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  • This makes a whole lot of sense to me and gets my support. Just to clarify: there would be three kinds of values: 1) bridge=yes (don't know / don't care); 2) a very small number of Map Features values as listed in the proposal and perhaps refined during the discussion phase; 3) User defined values, for the engineers amongst us or discoverers of the esoteric? MikeCollinson 19:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Basically, yes - although the line between 2 and 3 is blurred. For example, the canal community may decide to standardise on bridge=manual_swing for the standard swing bridges, but it might not make it onto the main Map Features. Aqueduct and Viaduct are the two obvious candidates for category 2. -- Gerv 10:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • +1 --Deelkar (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • +1 --Thomas Wood 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • +1, I like this proposal --ramack 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I really like this idea of being able to tag something as a vague bridge. And then if someone has more information about it, they can simply make it a little more specific. 'twould get my vote --Milliams 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Makes sense - Ulfl 03:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • +1 I think this is a great idea. Way more intuitive then the current methods Thewanderer 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good proposal, but if the value yes is don't know, I like to see another value for fixed bridges, eg. bridge or fixed --Steven te Brinke 15:04, 4 April 2008 (BST)
  • +1 I definitely support this proposal, because viaducts don't get rendered. I would change the osmarender style if the proposal gets accepted. studerap 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • +1 --Grille Chompa 11:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there is another big problem with bridges. Why I can't use it with areas? Some bridges are really big and are not defined only by the ways that are there. Problems appear for example, if bridges have two or more lanes which are tagged separately. So there you can see for example water between the lanes. So I think we need to tag areas as bridges, too! --Master 09:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • V Good point. Large bridges can carry cycleways/footways and two carriageways or a mixture of railways and roads. Maybe a relation would be good, but an area for a bridge is a simple solution that is exactly what is on the ground (no pun intended). Chillly 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • +1 to using bridge= with areas. I would find this useful for bridges that carry cycleways - they currently render as a separate bridge - and for important inner city bridges where being able to map the plan view of the bridge helps orientation at high zoom levels. --MikeCollinson 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the bridge area, but the orientation should be solved. how you tell the renderer which are bridge sides.--Sergionaranja 13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought about it, too. One solution could be, that the renderer has a look on the ways crossing the area and their layers and tries to check on what is bridge and what gets bridged. But it is not optimal I think.
    Another solution are relations. Make a relation whith the area of the bridge and the ways on it and everything is fine. --Master 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This proposal for using relations to represent bridges should also be considered. Alexrudd 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If bridges can have areas, then perhaps tunnels should also be allowed to map to areas? --Ndm 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aqueduct isn't necessarily on a bridge? (e.g. see Central Arizona Project or California Aqueduct. Ojw 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They probably named it "aqueduct" so the project sounds more sophisticated than simply "canal". On the ground they call it what it is, a "canal" - see http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo101/graphics/CAP.gif - Stefanb 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would bridge=dam be a good key for a road that passes over a dam? Gustavf 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Gerv 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Cartinus 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Vrabcak 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Alv 06:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Robx 07:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- studerap 07:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- OliverLondon 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Tordanik 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Pieren 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- PhilippeP 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Chillly 10:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Eimai 10:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- steinarh 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Cbm 12:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Aurel 13:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Hawke 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- BDROEGE 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Alexrudd 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- SlowRider 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- LEAn 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Ckruetze 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- alastairj 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Franc 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Jttt 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Myfanwy 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) but please keep the vote open for two weeks, we lose nothing but someone may want to object. thanks
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --MikeCollinson 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Walley 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nils 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Bwurst 08:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Chrischan 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Gustavf 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting finished?

According to the Proposed Features page, voting has ended on 2008-05-29. I'd expect to find the new tagging info in Key:bridge. What exactly is delaying this? --Tordanik 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)