Talk:Tag:bridge:structure=arch

Why not bridge=arch?

Why not bridge=arch? Jidanni (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed_features/Bridge_types. Without going much deeper, I would further point out bridge structure (taxonomy) can be more complicated than what is "approved". However, the scheme already allows for example cantilever arch bridge to be tagged.-- Kovposch (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What if only part of the bridge has an arch?

What if only the middle part has the arch? Jidanni (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an example? "Arch" bridges are like more complex (more than for example what Wikipedia may describe). It can be designed from a combination of deck level, spandrels, hangers, arch etc choices. I looked into the subject a little bit before. -- Kovposch (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I made [1], and then [2] . I hope somebody refines them. Jidanni (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This should be a through-arch bridge. Can't see the arch rib penetrating the deck -- you need to look closely if it's truly "only the middle part has the arch".

Gonna be two-hinged?

Can't ascertain if it is a tied-arch bridge owning to my lack of knowledge.

The two connected ribs are solid (or could it be a box rib?) and parallel, with simple lateral struts.

It has inclined hangers in a diagonal distribution that are non-crossing and non-network.

-- Kovposch (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)