<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald
      wrote :<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAKjckyMeL9EmPDfuaO9BL17EC-+TupRveUM=PZDTLJmHxKEJPg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André
            Pirard <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:A.Pirard.Papou@gmail.com" target="_blank">A.Pirard.Papou@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                <div>On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :<br>
                </div>
                <div class="">
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div>Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We
                        need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than
                        that, I have no problems with this. If a cave
                        has two cave entrances, then information that
                        they are connected by footpaths is valuable
                        information.<br>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                Obviously?  Regarding paths and waterways, especially
                ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder...<br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_extra">Maybe not completely obvious, but I
          would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a "tunnel" is man-made,
          while a "cave" is not.<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    "tunnel" is an attribute of an object called "highway", including
    the paths in question.<br>
    "cave:NNN=*" are attributes of objects "<tt
      style="background-color:#dde; white-space:pre;" dir="ltr"><a
        href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural"
        title="Key:natural">natural</a>=<a
        href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance"
        title="Tag:natural=cave entrance">cave_entrance"</a></tt>,
    obviously speleology and not path oriented.<br>
    "cave=*" is not defined.<br>
    I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using "cave=yes"
    for paths would first need a definition of it in the "highway=*" 
    page.<br>
    <br>
    This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let
    alone routing support.<br>
    Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just
    work or don't.<br>
    Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n?  And cope
    with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning
    cave or whatever made up tag?<br>
    <br>
    <table>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>André.</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>