Åtgärda inkonsekvent bro- och tunnel

Hej Svenska OSM samfundet!

TomTom’s tekniska team har utfört en analys som identifierar och fixar inkonsekventa bro- och tunneltaggar. I ett försök att hjälpa samhället att lösa potentiella problem, lanserar vi en ny utmaning; Sweden - Fix inconsistent bridge and tunnel tagging.

Det finns information på GitHub-sidan och utmaningsbeskrivningen för att hjälpa dig att lösa uppgifterna, men tveka inte att kontakta mig om du har några frågor, kommentarer eller funderingar.

Ha det så bra och önskar er alla en trevlig redigering!

:information_source: I think has flaws. I assume the query is layer=1 or layer=-1 without a bridge or tunnel.

While you are likely to find many issues with tagging, it will not apply to all of them. For example, this dam is not a bridge: Way: ‪Vittjärv‬ (‪48566581‬) | OpenStreetMap

This will lead to more errors introduced. I’ve seen this changed many times. Often stating “fixing a problem” when the person has no clue if it is a bridge or a tunnel. A way crossing a stream is much better than someone creating a non existent tunnel (or bridge).

What is the actual problem being fixed? Where does it cause an issue?

I see I did write too much before reading what it actually was. :slight_smile:
But I hope this challenge will not introduce as many false positives as some prevoius ones.

1 Like

As said , it’s often very hard to determine if it’s a bridge or tunnel. There are no hard rules which always can be followed.

It looks like the challenge looks for layer +/- without bridge/tunnel and bridge/tunnel without layer=*
It’s ok as long as the user make the right choise :slight_smile: but as Anders says, there is a rish people blindly slap on tags to get questpoints.

I’ve also seen places where people have crossed bridges with tunnels where there should only be a tunnel OR a bridge.

A while ago I did an overpass-search for waterways with layer tag and a way length > 100 m (or something like that), since waterways are usually not underground for so long distances.

But since it is almost impossible to see in aerial photos whether it is a tunnel, culvert or bridge where the waterway crosses a road, I only split the ways and gave it layer=-1 exactly where it crosses the road, not a longer distance.

Since it is almost impossible to see from aerial photos, I am a bit hesitant to the added value of this challange… :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

I found about half of them to be things to obviously fix and the other half dams that were ok. I didn’t do that many though.

Here is another quest that misses the point. Indoor layered mapping. Not sure how the quest would be able to avoid it though :slight_smile:

The need is simple: in Sweden we do not have many street leading trough a waterway. But their are counties where this is standard.

So the problem is more or less that openstreetmap is to sofistikerad: it is impossible to mark the crossing som “dry” or “level separated”. You can only choose between tunnel and bridge and this can go wrong.

But on the other hand i Vägverket showing that over 90 % of small crossings between waterways and roads are tunnels (vägtrumma) so their is at high chance to choose right.

And this might be imperfect but better than not separated…

But they are separated.

If they where connected by a node, then it could be a problem. A ford or no ford could make a difference.

But I still cant see why it can be a problem when its not added bridge or tunnel. You just drive over them with whatever you havet.

If the detail is needed for boating, nothing stated is much better than the “lies” added by many users “fixing problems”.

Hello @AndersAndersson @Wulfmorn @Skinfaxi @Tomas_Marklund,

Thank you for all your replies on our challenges, do you think it will make sense to hide/withdraw it for us to probably conduct further checks? or do you prefer the community continue to look into particular cases and tag/report on them accordingly on MapRoulette

62 tasks remaining… :thinking: I think I might be able to run through those at some point.

1 Like

Thank you @Wulfmorn
I was thinking of sending the same type of challenges for Norway, will it make sense or shall i await you to take your time to finish Sweden?
I hope it is ok to mention Norway here :slight_smile:

Never mention Norway in Sweden :wink: jk

I think its ok to publish some challenges in Norway based on the experiences from here. Worst case scenario nothing happens :slight_smile:

1 Like

makes sense, i will then post it either today or start of next week. thank you

Hi @Wulfmorn, everyone,

We cleared the challenge from “dam” open tasks - hence were removed to avoid risky situations in edits triggered by our challenge


Good point. If your thinking gets standard for application builder it will solve many problems and avoid unnessesary work.

Good morning OSM Sweden,

I found 7 new leads for this challenge that i already refilled for your review and resolution when/if possible.

Thank you,