<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>As long as it explicitly notes that <br></div><div>name and tunnel:name may be the same<br></div><div>I am ok with that</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>15 Aug 2020, 12:19 by email@daniel-korn.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Am 15.08.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:<br></div><blockquote><div>IMHO a tunnel is more than the way through it, the ventilation shafts, escape ways, also arguably all the tubes, could be considered „the tunnel“. The reason it is not done typically is that these features aren’t very visible (mostly underground) and hard to survey (you may not legally enter the escape ways usually, may not enter by bike or on foot).<br></div><div>For all of our common usecases, mapping the way through the tunnel and indicating it is inside a tunnel is sufficient, that’s why we do not map them in greater detail so far). An implicit tunnel is considered sufficient.<br></div></blockquote><div>To come back to my original question: I'd like to change the wiki to say that tagging name=* for the road and tunnel:name=* for the tunnel's name is preferred. Anyone who opposes this opinion?<br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Tagging mailing list<br></div><div>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br></div></blockquote> </body>
</html>