[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrlists at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 4 10:13:56 GMT 2009
oh and I forgot to give a word of warning in the other direction. Some
structures that you might think are bridges are actually tunnels because of
the way they were constructed, but I'll leave that to another day ;-)
>From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Bullock
>Sent: 04 November 2009 9:39 AM
>To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
>> I concede.
>> In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated
>> underground and a "cut and cover" is not truly a tunnel.
>> So the question now is how to tag an above ground "tunnel-like" structure
>> to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is "completely enclosed
>> all sides, save for the openings at each end".
>We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as
>long as the meaning is clear;
>If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck.
>I wouldn't hesitate to tag a cut-and-cover structure as a tunnel in OSM.
>A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that
>building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. It doesn't necessarily
>matter whether the "tunnel" is through a brick-built structure instead of,
>say, a man-made earth embankment or natural hill.
>By all means expand the tunnel key like others have done with bridge=* to
>describe the tunnel properties;
>e.g tunnel = cut_and_cover / tunnel = avalanche_tunnel etc.
>But I think the key here is that tunnel=yes should be allowable to get the
>basic meaning across without an editor requiring to be an expert in tunnel
>Of course there will be edge cases, but we don't have to go and invent a
>million new keys to describe similar, but not identical, classes of object.
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging