Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.

[roads] ref tags are not rendered when highway=secondary + bridge=yes are used #3215

Closed
openstreetmap-trac opened this issue Jul 23, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link

Reporter: rickmastfan67
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 12.49am, Tuesday, 7th September 2010]

When ref tags are present on highway=secondary + bridge=yes ways, the ref tags are not being rendered. Even on the lowest zooms it will not render period.

Here's an example on a long bridge where it's very noticeable on z=18 because if you go on either side of the bridge, you can see the ref tags on the normal roads that don't have the bridge=yes tags:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=29425774

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: Ldp
[Added to the original trac issue at 11.07am, Saturday, 25th September 2010]

This is intended behaviour, see #2136.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: rickmastfan67
[Added to the original trac issue at 12.30pm, Saturday, 25th September 2010]

So, you're saying that the REF tags don't get rendered on bridges that are Secondary and lower classification?? Yet they are on Primary and up? Kinda stupid if you ask me. I would think that Secondary should be the lowest (at least) to get the ref tags on bridges as well.

As another example, here's Florida State Highway 656 crossing the Intercoastal Waterway on a very long bridge.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.632457&lon=-80.370747&zoom=18&layers=M
You would think at least ONE ref tag would be rendered on it at z=18 or z=17, no?

If you don't want to put them on territory highways, fine. But Secondary Highways should get them. Especially if they have a very long bridge on them.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: Ldp
[Added to the original trac issue at 12.34pm, Saturday, 25th September 2010]

It was done so the ref shield would not hide small bridges, and we don't test for the length of a bridge. Yet. Keeping this open to think about that.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: rickmastfan67
[Added to the original trac issue at 1.00pm, Saturday, 25th September 2010]

Replying to [comment:3 Ldp]:

It was done so the ref shield would not hide small bridges, and we don't test for the length of a bridge. Yet. Keeping this open to think about that.

Well, the ref tags on motorways and trunk highways with small bridges still often have the ref tag hide the bridge. Just saying. ;)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.35584&lon=-81.66117&zoom=17&layers=M

But I personally wouldn't hastily go and attempt to remove them on Primary, Trunk, & Motorway's because I've seen really long bridges on some of those types of highways that really NEED the ref tag (like Interstates).

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: Ldp
[Added to the original trac issue at 1.30pm, Saturday, 25th September 2010]

The original request was for secondary bridges, and higher classed roads weren't done at that time, partly because of the reasons you mentioned.

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: lpechacek
[Added to the original trac issue at 9.47pm, Sunday, 20th February 2011]

Replying to [comment:3 Ldp]:

It was done so the ref shield would not hide small bridges, and we don't test for the length of a bridge.

I've spotted bridges that were missing the "ref" tags just because of tagging for the renderer. Short bridges were hidden behind the ref shield, so the users decided to remove the tag.

How much work is it to implement the shield rendering based on the bridge length? Does it mean tweaking osm.xml only or does it involve hacking Mapnik itsef?

@openstreetmap-trac
Copy link
Author

Author: math1985
[Added to the original trac issue at 9.05pm, Monday, 2nd June 2014]

We don't store bridge length in the database, so we have currently no way to implement this. I will therefore close this issue as wontfix.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant