Tagging Culverts on Roads
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi All,
Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping out Culverts on (way/highway) roads. The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). Note - tagging should be on the way, not on a node. This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a conclusion https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage. We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure. Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons. Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses. Andrew _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:19, Andrew Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry, got to say that I personally can't see anything "wrong" with either of them?
It looks like a defined bridge passing over a (probably) storm-water drain. The road is tagged as a bridge at layer=1. The drain could be tagged as -1 but I believe that's not strictly necessary.
Why does the way need to be split? On imagery, it looks like a road without a discernible bridge, while the drain runs under it through a culvert as -1, which seems to be fine?
Thanks Graeme _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
Hi Andrew, I think you also need to consider the maxweight and restrictions key in this discussion https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Restrictions Is it not more likely that a road would have a displayed sign where a weight limit / restriction exists and this should be added to the road? I am not sure that most folks would have the ability to assess a culverts carrying capacity but I can see why you would like some attachment to the road way rather than the hydrology. I am however, not up on all the fine detail on tagging – it does my head in 😊 Cheers - Phil From: Andrew Hughes <[hidden email]> Hi All, Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping out Culverts on (way/highway) roads. The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). Note - tagging should be on the way, not on a node. This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a conclusion https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage. We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure. Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons. Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses. Andrew _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
Hi Graeme, Thanks for looking at these. Your layer=-1 / layer=1 suggestion would be very suitable if we were just looking to visualize, however our end goal is to map these in such as way that routing responses will identify all of the assets/structures being traversed (including culverts). I would avoid using a spatial relationship as it is unreliable nor easy to maintain. I should've stated that looking at either of the x2 the (road) ways I used as examples: 783119480 & 27885431 it's not possible to determine that either (specifically) traverses a culvert. Best you can determine on 783119480 is that it traverses a "bridge" of no specific type/structure (bridge=yes). re: splitting 27885431 - only part of the way traverses the culvert. Just like 783119480 iis the traversal of the culvert(s) only. I really didn't want to throw out ideas - because I'm such a novice and there's a high probability that they will be nothing but noise. But it does seem sensible (on the surface - pardon the pun) to use bridge=culvert (like a water course is tagged with tunnel=culvert). There's alternate discussions around using bridge=simple_brunnel (or man_made=culvert) but all have extremely low adoption and seem controversial. Thanks for taking a look, much appreciated. Andrew On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
I agree with tagging any section of road with speed limits or weight limits where applicable. I have been driving on Australian roads for many years and, while I have seen bridges or sections of roads signposted as being subject to speed or weight limits, I do not recall ever seeing a few metres of road over a culvert with such limits. If there are signposted limits, I support tagging the appropriate section of road. However, I would not support non-verifiable limits being added to OSM. If a section of road is subject to signposted limits, I think it would apply to a length of road longer than the short distance over a culvert so that the road limits would be mapped separately from the tunnel=culvert which is part of the waterway. While it is a matter for judgement in each case, waterways in culverts would usually be layer=-1 so that the road does not need to have a layer tag. Where the level of a road is elevated to cross a waterway, then it may be appropriate to add layer=1 but this would depend on survey or street-level imagery and unlikely to be determined from satellite imagery. In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a separate issue. Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Hi All, > > Apologies for the boring subject, but I'd like to talk about mapping > out Culverts on (way/highway) roads. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert > > The reason we would like to map these is that they influence road usage > and in particular usage for heavy vehicles. They are very much like a > bridge in that they have weight & width limits and often have > conditions of use (such as maximum speed) or considerations during > natural disaster scenarios (i.e. flooding). *Note - tagging should be > on the way, not on a node.* > > This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a > conclusion > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section > > From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water course (i.e. > river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where > water traverses man made structures and I can see it helping many > scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road usage. > > We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure. > > Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below? > * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677 : > * _*Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing?*_ > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677> > * Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480 > * Way needs to be split > * Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with > tunnel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431 > * _*Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?*_ > We plan to be tagging a lot of culverts in the future, so it's > important for use to get some clarity around this for obvious reasons. > > Thanks for reading & look forward to hearing your responses. > Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't reached a > conclusion It reached a conclusion quite a long time ago. The argument was about what to tag the waterway with to indicate that there is a culvert. I don't think there has ever been a push to tag the highway to indicate that there is a culvert. > We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure. Are you sure about that? As Phil points out you can spit the way above the culvert and tag that with maxweight, width, maxwidth, or whatever to indicate the effect that the culvert has on the traffic that is allowed to pass over it. OSM doesn't really have any existing tagging for flood vulnerability of water crossing, except perhaps bridge=low_water_crossing. ford=yes could be anything from a track over a watercourse that runs maybe once a decade to a crossing that's only safe to use for a couple of days a year by vehicles equipped with a snorkel. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
Nov 27, 2020, 01:15 by [hidden email]:
Why?
Hard to say without photo of a location. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Davidson-3
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 19:22, cleary <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 19:38, Andrew Davidson <[hidden email]> wrote: OSM doesn't really have any existing tagging for flood vulnerability of I can't see any reason not to just use ford=yes for floodways? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford suggests using depth=0 "for fords that are dry most of the year", together with intermittent=yes. I've done this for footpath fords, together with a description= "After heavy rain only" & also a maxdepth=1, based on the flood height post.
Thanks Graeme _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by cleary
There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only where signposted.
Mark P.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
I can see an argument for mapping culverts similar to highway=ford because the single culvert structure can be considered both part of the road way and water way, and generally one real world feature should be one object in OSM. However, there are some tags that would be context relevant, eg. width=* on the road would be the roadwidth, but on the waterway would be the waterway width (through the culvert). Similar for surface, it might make sense to separately tag the road surface vs surface of the culvert. So here it can be helpful to map the culvert essential separately for each context. I agree that similar to a bridge if there is a weight restriction etc then best to apply that to the way segment of the road, though a node usually would be fine as a first pass of mapping. I know that generally we prefer to only map things which are verifiable on the ground, there is a lot of prior art with non-verifiable things being mapped. Some kinds of admin boundaries, protected area boundaries, wikipedia/wikidata tags. So while I think verifiability is important, I think other non-verifiable things can be looked at case by case, based on what it is, where the data is coming from. For specific examples, it's hard to say without some photos. On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 11:19, Andrew Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Pulley
Thanks for that info.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, at 11:15 AM, Mark Pulley wrote: > There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only > where signposted. > > Mark P. > > > On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a separate issue. Sometimes lengths of road may be signposted as floodways and I am not aware if there is any appropriate OSM tagging for that. If so, it should be only where signposted and we should not assume that every place where a road crosses a stream is necessarily subject to flooding. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
Hi All, Thanks everyone for your feedback. We would like the culvert to be an 'isolated' segment of road for a number of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established. Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy & application. Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road. Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other nicely. We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing, being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible. I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see culverts mapped this way. Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way? Kind regards, --Andrew On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:12, cleary <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks for that info. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
Hi Andrew Thanks for that explanation! On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 12:27, Andrew Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
No, not really that I can see!, but ...
Currently, at least, tunnel=culvert doesn't render on the road, it only shows as a faint dotted line for the stream / drain passing under the road, so won't be very visible (at least that's how they show in OSMand+ - other nav programs may be different?)
That's likely to be the biggest problem. Where are you getting the weight restriction limits? I've driven over quite a few bridges & culverts, in both built-up & country areas, & very few of them have weight limits posted. If you're accessing external (Govt?) data-bases that have these details listed, do we have permission to use their data in OSM? Wouldn't the thickness of the road surface also need to be taken into account with these calculations? eg there's a culvert here with 10cm of gravel over it, but just over there the same size culvert is 5m down under hard-packed earth & a bitumen roadway. I would think that the only way of establishing something like that would be personal inspection? (unless it's also listed in a data-base?)
I certainly can't argue with you there! Location details that were being passed to the public were shockingly inadequate, & in a lot of cases depended on where a line on a map was drawn, as that will apparently stop a fire in its tracks! :-(
Sorry, I don't want to come across as anti your idea, because I can see it's advantages, but I think there'll be quite a few issues involved in doing what you want to achieve. Thanks Graeme _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
Hi Andrew, It seems to me there are a few issues here. Culverts are already in OSM so its relatively easy to extract them and use them in conjunction with other spatial software. If they are well located spatially then they will intersect the road. There is no real need for them to have an ‘attachment’ to the road. There are also no doubt cases where there are culverts with no attachment to a creek or river (ie crossing into a property over a ‘drain’) The second is how they are rendered. The beauty of OSM is that should someone want to make a specific map, app or routing software based on OSM, say for heavy vehicles, then they are free to render the culverts in many ways depending on the attributes that are attached to them. Indeed, I would love to see an “Emergency Services” render of OSM features that is great for firefighters/Ambulance etc that specifically highlights fire trails, water sources, hydrants, hospitals, ‘places of last resort’ etc. http://openfiremap.org/ - zoom in to see hydrants/stations etc Thirdly, is how they can be ‘matched’ to other systems. The ‘ref‘ key is often used for this (metro/transport stops etc) so that may go partway to a solution for you. Others can probably comment more on how that has been achieved in the past. You may also consider if other attributes would be good to add to the tunnel=culvert tags. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4903105785/history Hope this helps you in getting more useful data into OSM. Cheers - Phil From: Andrew Hughes <[hidden email]> Hi All, Thanks everyone for your feedback. We would like the culvert to be an 'isolated' segment of road for a number of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the culvert is identifiable so that it's not just 'somewhere' on the road because it's not signposted - possibly mixed along segments with other culverts. This is exactly the same as why a waterway would be isolated and tagged with the culvert also - so that its location can be established. Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways. This will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater accuracy & application. Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road. Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not have a spatial component and would compliment each other nicely. We also feel that mapping these out in OpenStreetMap in this way would greatly assist in the event of natural disaster. The royal commission into bushfires last summer discussed the issue of data either not existing, being inaccessible or not within in a national context. Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is possible. I hope this helps explain just a few reasons why we would like to see culverts mapped this way. Is there a reason why it is a bad idea to map Culverts this way? Kind regards, --Andrew On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:12, cleary <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
Nov 30, 2020, 03:24 by [hidden email]:
It is already identifiable as location where line representing culvert and line representing road crosses (skipping cases of road tagged as bridge or tunnel would be needed to avoid rare false positive). This requires some processing, but it is far less work overall than mapping this manually. In general mapping manually something that may be handled automatically in data processing is a very bad idea.
I once or twice split natural=water area of river (or waterway=riverbank area) and tagged it with covered=yes. Something similar for culverts may be also done.
Can you give examples of well mapped road and waterway geometry where tagging tunnel=culvert on waterway is not sufficient and tagging culvert on road is needed to achieve this "far greater accuracy & application"?
This should be handled well by existing tagging.
Adding reference numbers to a culvert is possible already.
What kind of data would require tagging culvert also on road? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
Nov 30, 2020, 04:21 by [hidden email]:
And OSM is open data, so if someone is interested in culverts they can make their own rendering!
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines for more info _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 27/11/20 11:40 am, Graeme
Fitzpatrick wrote:
I take the view that layer=0 is 'ground level' Most natural water
courses are, in my view, all layer=0. It is unusual the have water
under 'ground level' rise to the surface ... some do exist though,
but not usually for 'drains'. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Hughes
On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes
wrote:
Yet to see any signs on any culvert in Australia with weight
& width limits. May culverts are simple pipes under the road, just a little wider
than the road. It would be difficult to map these with any
accuracy for the length of the pipe.
Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient?
If imagery is used, how do you distinguish between a small bridge
and a large culvert? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads
|
|
Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by [hidden email]:
That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node vertically separated objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under road on a viaduct. node shared by waterway and road is for fords
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
|
|
On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny
via Talk-au wrote:
OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways
at a singular shared node.
Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert
indication separate from the waterway culvert indication? Lot of
work for a change to tagging methods... _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
«
Return to Australia
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |