|
The skyway in question is here. I searched here for skyway and found an old discussion of the famous Bridge of Sighs in Oxford. However, that bridge has the same problem. Despite the bridge:covered, layer=1, building:levels=3 and building:min_level=3, the feature warns that the footpath below and West Church St both cross it without a proper junction. In other areas, naming something a bridge immediately cleared out this error. Is there a better way to map this so that it doesn't conflict with the ways below it? |
|
It isn't clear what's warning you about the crossing, but the JOSM validator is fine with it. The important tag is layer, which is correctly describing the vertical layout of the various ways (West Church Street and the sidewalks at the implied layer=0, and the bridge above them at layer=1). One thing you should consider changing, though, is the highway tag. Currently, it's tagged as a pedestrianized road, which seems unlikely for an elevated walkway (unless vehicles do have access to that level and can use the bridge, in which case it's fine). However, if the bridge is only for foot traffic, then highway=footway would be the best tag. I would also say that the level tags are wrong. That shouldn't have any influence on the validator message, though. If the skyway is on the third level it should be building:levels=3 and Building:min_level=2. Have look at the illustration on the wiki. Thinking about it I would probably separate the skyway structure as a building from the path leading trough it. Currently you have a highway=pedestrian that is not connected to any other navigable path or road.
(20 Nov '19, 08:25)
TZorn
1
IMO unless (until?) the bridge in question is actually routable -- ie, connected to other
(20 Nov '19, 18:44)
jmapb
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I'm editing in ID and see the warnings there. I agree after reading the wiki that min_level=2 should apply. I was trying to edit the original editor's work which was the pedestrian area with a disconnected footpath through it. It seems that isn't the best course of action. Starting from scratch, then, how should I draw this building that connects the other two buildings on the third floor? Thank you again for the assistance.
|
|
You could add covered=yes to the ways running below. (Or, for more accuracy, split the ways and tag the parts under the bridge as covered=yes.) That clears the warning, and provides a bit of extra detail to the database. But it could be that iD is misbehaving a bit here in displaying these warnings in the first place. 3
I wouldn't call a road or path where a buidling crosses two floors up "covered". So I discourage tagging it that way. In any case don't tag "something" to get rid of a warning. It's only a warning after all.
(21 Nov '19, 12:34)
TZorn
|
