My profile link :
Users 20899 (sorry only allowed two links and thought it would be better on the map side!)
I have noticed that some bridges are on roads that are not included in CityStrides for various reasons.
Could we add a filter to remove nodes that are marked with âBridgeâ and then âYesâ
Example:
Pace Gate Bridge, Harrogate is on a road that is non-ânodedâ
Tag:
Bridge: yes
I looked up this bridge in osm and i donât see anything strange concerning this piece of road.
Itâs perfect runnable.
But: donât exclude âbridge = yesâ in CS. Since bridges are runnable and a street. Only when itâs âfoot = noâ should it be excluded, and that already happens.
Hi,
So my thoughts are;
If the bridge is on a road that is runnable, then absolutely, keep it in.
However, when a bridge, such as the one referenced, is on a road with no nodes, and not âone to runâ it does not feel right to have bridges included.
Then this leads me to think it is âeasierâ to exclude all bridges as the only ones I have come across are overlayed on roads, so any bridges on runnable roads already have nodes, and visa versa.
I hope that logic makes sense. It âfeelsâ odd to have a ârunnableâ bridge in the middle of a non-runnable (strides wise) road.
I thought it might be âeasiestâ to filter them out, rather than worry if they should not be names, but tags.
I think excluding all bridges would be a bit excessive. Especially in more urban areas there are plenty of bridges that are distinct objects which should be runnable.
Maybe it would be an option to edit Pace Gate so as to exclude it specifically? A quick look on Google street view shows an unremarkable stretch of road with no signage indicating that this should be a named object. Removing the name would remove it from CS.
@8f7162110d9eeaf907ab Thatâs a valid point. In this particular instance, I have cross-referenced information from Google Maps, OpenStreetMap, and OS Maps. It is designated as a secondary road on OS Maps; however, it has no name anywhere.
I suspect it was the main road at some point, the road has been, and is being, realigned.
Funny how Google cars skipped it out, there are plenty of âquirksâ out there. Not sure what to ânameâ the road.
I think you are correct, the road has old_ref tag A59, which is now that bigger road just south. I would be tempted to remove the name tag for the bridge and just leave it at that.
I would run the bridge and the whole road anyway, even if it has no name or nodes. I donât like to see those white lines on my LifeMapđ
The OSM tags refer to a wikidata entry, the bridge has a heritage designation under that name. Please do not remove the name just because you do not want to run it.
Even if it did not have that designation, you should still first find out why it has that name in OSM and then find out why it should no longer have that name.
Thank you for your infomation.
I was not looking to run/not run it. Whilst some bridges are in obsure locations, it âfeelsâ strange for bridges to be shown on routes that are not always roads.
Some are old roads, like the old A59, accessable almost as a side road, many are just passed over as part of a âroadâ, but some are on, essentially, footpaths. That said, the main crux, the bridge I mentioned is easy enough to access, but thats not my point.
To me they are not âroadsâ to be run, rather something holding a road up. Thus my query, itâs good to be getting all this information to understand, and try to edit correctly (which maybe not editting at all).
I feel like I go back to looking to hiding bridges on here.
the issue with bridges, as in this case, the bridge tag is a part (an attribute) of a piece of road. You can only tag a road/way/street as bridge. You cannot leave a bridge out, since it would create a âholeâ in the street when the street with the bridge in it was named and this part would would then be filtered out.
It would be easier to name this road something, pace gate road maybe?