Small culverts/bridges in bushland

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Jonathon Rossi
Hi,

Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a response, they have been active in that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a loss on how to contact them.

My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber bridge especially those added for MTB.

The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.

I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.

Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is there so someone doesn't add a ford.

Thanks, Jono


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Warin
On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
Hi,

Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a response, they have been active in that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a loss on how to contact them.

Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.

My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber bridge especially those added for MTB.

The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.

I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.

Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is there so someone doesn't add a ford.

OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove them. Edit wars.

A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.

I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a crossing .. the details are not viewable in imagery.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Jonathon Rossi
I finally got a response on the changeset, thanks for the pointer Warin. The response unfortunately isn't the clearest explanation of why fords were added when a ground survey wasn't performed since you can rarely see culverts from aerial imagery.

> I have only ever mapped what is on the ground. There's always some way for a path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc. It just seems a bit trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that is so small you can jump across it.

@Ian @Warin I definitely don't want to start edit wars which is why I'm here, and I do see how mapping a culvert/bridge as a node on the respective way is problematic because it isn't at the intersection/overlapping of both ways. Glad to hear you too Ian have run into this exact problem with somewhat trivial culverts/bridges, exactly as you said that are small enough you could jump over. I thought others would have weighed in with their opinion, so in lieu of that, I think I'll just start mapping all culverts by splitting waterways but only split highways (to reduce mismatching tag pain) for more significant bridges (maybe anything you couldn't jump across) unless I'm removing an erroneously mapped ford (and I'll reconsider).

Thanks

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
Hi,

Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a response, they have been active in that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a loss on how to contact them.

Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.

My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber bridge especially those added for MTB.

The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.

I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.

Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is there so someone doesn't add a ford.

OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove them. Edit wars.

A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.

I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a crossing .. the details are not viewable in imagery.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Warin
On 30/05/18 02:26, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
I finally got a response on the changeset, thanks for the pointer Warin. The response unfortunately isn't the clearest explanation of why fords were added when a ground survey wasn't performed since you can rarely see culverts from aerial imagery.

> I have only ever mapped what is on the ground. There's always some way for a path the cross a stream - ford, culvert, bridge etc. It just seems a bit trivial when you have a path crossing a mapped stream that is so small you can jump across it.

@Ian @Warin I definitely don't want to start edit wars which is why I'm here, and I do see how mapping a culvert/bridge as a node on the respective way is problematic because it isn't at the intersection/overlapping of both ways. Glad to hear you too Ian have run into this exact problem with somewhat trivial culverts/bridges, exactly as you said that are small enough you could jump over. I thought others would have weighed in with their opinion, so in lieu of that, I think I'll just start mapping all culverts by splitting waterways but only split highways (to reduce mismatching tag pain) for more significant bridges (maybe anything you couldn't jump across) unless I'm removing an erroneously mapped ford (and I'll reconsider).

If you 'jump across it' I'd go for ford. Reason ... it is not a bridge, nor a culvert both of which require infrastructure.
The ford to me give warning that I might get wet feet, and that if flooded I may have to wait.
So that is the 'best fit' where the crossing has nothing other than what nature has provided.

Thanks

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/05/18 00:56, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
Hi,

Lately a mapper has been adding heaps of fords in SE QLD bushland along with more creeks/streams, however I've noticed quite a lot of the fords aren't actually fords based on my local knowledge of the area. I tried commenting on a changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58540304) 2 weeks ago and again a week ago without a response, they have been active in that time and appear to be a long time contributor, but I'm now at a loss on how to contact them.

Request a 0 hour block from the Data Working Group ...
This stops further edits until they acknowledge the problem.

My question isn't about what they've been doing, but about the fact I've not wanted to split ways and try to line up a tiny culvert or bridge when they are physically so small, however because they haven't been mapped someone is now incorrectly added fords. Many of the culverts are just a small pipe (sometimes as small as 20mm diameter and 0.5m long) with dirt over it to keep the trail dry (the trail is usually built up a little in the low lying area), and many of the bridges are only a metre long timber bridge especially those added for MTB.

The wiki states that bridge=* and tunnel=* should not be used on nodes, so I've not used them and in the past only mapped fords (many which have big sized gravel or stepping stones) and obviously use a shared node.

I've read a bunch of discussion on this topic and agree that splitting ways to model these is overkill as the tags on each way can get out of sync and get in the way, but removing the incorrect fords and not putting something in their place irks me. The wiki's comment about a ford: "You are both on the highway and in the waterway, and not separated logically as a stream under a bridge would be" makes complete sense, and I don't want shared nodes for these cases even though many streams are intermittent.

Finally my question, why couldn't we map a culvert as a node of a waterway, or a bridge as a node of a highway? The only other option I can think of is to add a note to a node of highway/waterway describing what is there so someone doesn't add a ford.

OSM rules - anything you like...
So you could map them as nodes... but other mappers could remove them. Edit wars.

A culvert should be on the crossing of water and a path/road.

I also have concerns that another mapper has added water crossing details ... base on nothing other than the presence in OSM of a crossing .. the details are not viewable in imagery.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Jonathon Rossi
If you 'jump across it' I'd go for ford. Reason ... it is not a bridge, nor a culvert both of which require infrastructure.
The ford to me give warning that I might get wet feet, and that if flooded I may have to wait.
So that is the 'best fit' where the crossing has nothing other than what nature has provided.

When I said "more significant bridges (maybe anything you couldn't jump across)", I meant that without the bridge you couldn't jump across. There definitely is man made infrastructure, but they are small and just "anchor" on either side of the stream.

I should have done this at the beginning, I've got some random examples from Google Images that should help illustrate what I'm referring to.

Easy to jump over on foot, more just a convenience bridge especially for wheeled users:

Too big to jump on foot (or too deep), so map it:

--
Jono

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Jonathon Rossi

I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.


I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.

Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm in a teacup?

Jono

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Warin
On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.


Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
If you want more than the two of you  to contribute then hold the discussion here. :)


I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.

Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm in a teacup?

Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including bridges. 
The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the route ... depends on how much detail you want to get.

If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no problem in splitting it up and having the same name on the separate ways .. just like there in for highways now.
It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth and so that should be what is in OSM.


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Jonathon Rossi
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:34 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.


Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
If you want more than the two of you  to contribute then hold the discussion here. :)

I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply all. Apologies if this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, but in my use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.

I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.

Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm in a teacup?

Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including bridges. 
The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the route ... depends on how much detail you want to get.
 
IMBA difficulty ratings (and those for hiking and horse riding) generally apply to the whole trail even if one section is easier, because you can't just leave the trail if it gets hard and usually trail builders will have decided the classification before starting work. However, trails can sometimes fork (for a decent length) and rejoin, so that does already give you multiple ways.

If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no problem in splitting it up and having the same name on the separate ways .. just like there in for highways now.
It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth and so that should be what is in OSM.

Great, I wanted to make sure people didn't see bush paths/trails as less important than roads for cars. I guess the only way to avoid fords being mapped incorrectly is to map bridges where they actually exist no matter their size.

Thanks

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Warin
On 30/05/18 18:10, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:34 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.


Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
If you want more than the two of you  to contribute then hold the discussion here. :)

I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply all. Apologies if this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, but in my use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.
Depends on the other person .. some see it as 'private'. Others have just made an error.
Personally I try to keep the replay to the list only ... no point in have a separate To: or Cc: thing in the address bar ... and it keeps my mail filters happy :)


I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other tags including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to add tiny bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags on separate highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen tiny bridges.

Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a storm in a teacup?

Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including bridges. 
The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the route ... depends on how much detail you want to get.
 
IMBA difficulty ratings (and those for hiking and horse riding) generally apply to the whole trail even if one section is easier, because you can't just leave the trail if it gets hard and usually trail builders will have decided the classification before starting work. However, trails can sometimes fork (for a decent length) and rejoin, so that does already give you multiple ways.

If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no problem in splitting it up and having the same name on the separate ways .. just like there in for highways now.
It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth and so that should be what is in OSM.

Great, I wanted to make sure people didn't see bush paths/trails as less important than roads for cars. I guess the only way to avoid fords being mapped incorrectly is to map bridges where they actually exist no matter their size.


It is less complex the way you have it :) ... but less 'truthful'. :(
The broken up roads are a pain when you try to change there classifications .. you have to do it for each bridge and way ... at least that is the present arrangement .. possibly if they were relations it would be easier for the name, classification ...

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

osm.talk-au

From: Warin <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2018 19:17
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

 

I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was short and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply all. Apologies if this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette, but in my use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.

Depends on the other person .. some see it as 'private'. Others have just made an error.
Personally I try to keep the replay to the list only ... no point in have a separate To: or Cc: thing in the address bar ... and it keeps my mail filters happy :)


 

Not sending it to the list was an unintentional mistake on my side in this case… I wouldn’t have noticed that it didn’t went to the list if you hadn’t mentioned it…

 


It is less complex the way you have it :) ... but less 'truthful'. :(
The broken up roads are a pain when you try to change there classifications .. you have to do it for each bridge and way ... at least that is the present arrangement .. possibly if they were relations it would be easier for the name, classification ...

 

 

For roads, if you want to make a change that should affect all segments, what I found works very well is just to use the search function in JOSM to look for name=”xxx” then do a quick visual check to make sure it’s all and only the segments you want. Then you can directly and easily edit tags and it affects everything.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Small culverts/bridges in bushland

Simon Slater
In reply to this post by Jonathon Rossi
On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 6:10:54 PM AEST Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.

I use "Reply to List" - easy as pressing L.
--
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au