Proposal:Man made=bridge
| The Feature Page for this approved proposal is located at Tag:man_made=bridge |
| Indicate the outline of a bridge | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | imagic |
| Tagging: | man_made=bridge |
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | Indicate the outline of a bridge and group together all features for that bridge |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2013-02-02 |
| RFC start: | 2013-02-02 |
| Vote start: | 2014-10-13 |
| Vote end: | 2014-10-27 |
The tag man_made=bridge should be used to indicate the outline of a bridge and group together all features for that bridge.
Rationale
Currently there exists the key bridge=* to indicate that a certain OSM way runs over a bridge. Furthermore the proposed relation bridge can be used to group together all features of a bridge. The proposed tag man_made=bridge is a step in between: it allows to group together all features of a one-level-bridge without the need of a relation, and also seamlessly integrates into the proposed relation bridge as outline-member in case of multi-level-bridges.
Tagging
Bridges with one level
Draw the outline of the bridge as closed way and apply man_made=bridge to it. Connect all OSM ways running over that bridge to the outline. The OSM ways are tagged as usually with bridge=yes and layer=*. On the outline add the same layer=* as on the OSM ways crossing it. The key bridge=* can be used on the outline to indicate the type of the bridge.
Attributes of the bridge itself should now be added to the outline. An example would be the key name=*: add the name of the bridge to the outline and the name of the roads to the OSM ways.
Bridges with more than one level
The same as before but the key layer=* should now contain the lowest number of all the features on the bridge. To group together all features of the bridge the proposed relation bridge is now used and the outline tagged with man_made=bridge is added as outline-member to that Relation of the bridge itself should be added to the relation.
Examples
One way, one level
A bridge represented by only one OSM way. The way itself is tagged with bridge=yes and layer=1.
It is possible but usually not necessary to specify the outline in this case. One possible reason would be the ability to specify the name of the bridge and of the road separately.
Two ways, one level
A bridge represented by two OSM ways, both of them at the same level. The ways are tagged with bridge=yes and layer=1. The outline is drawn and tagged with man_made=bridge and layer=1. The OSM ways are connected to the outline.
If the bridge has a specific name it would be added to the outline.
Multiple ways, two levels
A large bridge with two carriage ways and a cycleway running below those. For better visibility only a part of the bridge is shown and the outline is displayed as a red-dashed line.
The OSM ways of the roads are tagged with bridge=yes and layer=2. The cycleway is tagged with bridge=yes and layer=1. The outline is drawn and tagged with man_made=bridge and layer=1. The proposed relation bridge is used to combine all features together and the OSM way of the outline is added as the outline-member to the relation.
The name of the bridge would be added to the relation.
Common questions
Why not use only the relation?
The proposed tag covers the majority of bridges while making it much easier for the average mapper to group together all the features of a bridge compared to using a relation.
Related keys
See also
- Discussion on the tagging mailing list: Part 1 and part 2
- Second RFC: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-October/thread.html#19615
- Proposed relation for bridges and tunnels
Comments
Please use the Discussion page for this.
Voting
Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons to oppose. Use ~~~~ to sign with your user name & date.
I approve this proposal.. I consider this to be a good tagging scheme for marking bridge areas, especially as format is easy to use by data consumers (for example in openstreetmap-carto style) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. Glassman (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Neuhausr (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Jaggedmind (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Math1985 (talk) I think it is good practice to centrally discuss tags and formally vote on them, even if these tags are already in widespread use.
- I approve this proposal. austi1996 (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Sommerluk (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Imagic (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --opani (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Ireun (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Floscher (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Davo (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. — AlaskaDave (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Magol (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I have used this myself many times.
- I approve this proposal. Michalg0x5a (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Nadjita (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Jongleur (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Lks1 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Kocio (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jedrzej Pelka (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. but not in conjunction with a bridge relation. Better use layer=1;2 in the two-level example, and you'll need no relation. --Fkv (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Oekkel (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Dieterdreist (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jojo4u (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jo (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Alester (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Voting ended. The proposal was approved with 27 votes, no opposition.