<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
First, let us not confuse speleology and tourism.<br>
OSM is the most interesting for touristic caves to walk in 2D.<br>
Speleologists have their own 3D maps showing where to crawl.<br>
I worked in a touristic cave when I was a student and I can tell
you that the paths look very much like man-made, especially the
main entrance that nobody would call anything else than a tunnel.<br>
I wasn't, of course, thinking of using a (let alone) GPS to find
my way through a cave, but I would love this dialog with tourists
in a cave: - What's that map? - OpenStreetMap. Why? Doesn't it
work with Google?<br>
<br>
So, my first conclusion is: why do we insist on sticking the
concept to either cave or tunnel instead of both?<br>
<br>
On 2014-08-14 15:47, Janko Mihelić wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAA=vpS8ea8YrC924aJooroOP433_Lm=50HFO24+b0UWaA13LCw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>The reason "renderers don't render it" is invalid
because of one of the oldest rules in OSM: don't tag for
the renderer.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There goes that nude saying again.<br>
Tagging for the renderer is <b>making a tagging mistake</b> to
obtain some rendering.<br>
There would be no tagging mistakes if we decided that "tunnel"
applies to some caves.<br>
Now, regarding the difficulty to render cave=*, it's a well known
fact that many people complain to tag in vain because what they tag
doesn't show on the map (e.g. a mini-golf vs tennis pitch), because
they're told to open a rendering ticket which replies that only
official tags are supported, and because they open a vote for an
official tag and nobody signs.<br>
<br>
The second conclusion is that it's really difficult to obtain rare
rendering, and especially like this:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-08-14 14:00, SomeoneElse wrote
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53ECA4E9.5070809@mail.atownsend.org.uk"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/08/2014 12:22, André Pirard
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53EC9C08.5070208@gmail.com" type="cite"> <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>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it really wouldn't(1).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
(1) <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like</a>
- and yes, that page does discuss "Documenting tags not in Map
Features" and "What not to map" too.<br>
</blockquote>
And as nobody would like to show a blank map to tourists in a cave,
they will tag for the renderer.<br>
The nude sentence should be "don't have mappers to be forced to tag
for the renderer" instead.<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>