[OSM-newbies] Road below a building

[Mike Harris]

I would have thought tunnel (and layer =-1) was only appropriate if the road
was significantly physically below the prevailing ground level in the area.
Otherwise I would tend to keep the road at layer=0 and (and implicitly
tunnel=no) and adjust the layer values of other features as necessary. Just
a personal opinion but my gut feel is that layer=0 is the level of the
surrounding terrain?

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy [mailto:rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: 27 October 2009 19:22
> To: newbies at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-newbies] Road below a building
> 
> Pieren wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Arlindo Pereira <nighto at nighto.net> 
> >wrote:
> >>we should not tag for the renderer
> >
> >I'm not talking about rendering but modeling. A covered road with a 
> >limited height is a kind of tunnel. Or how do you tag a road 
> covered by 
> >a simple roof ? Many people do that. When a stream or a river goes 
> >under ground through maybe a pipeline, I also tag it with "tunnel".
> >When a road goes below a bridge which is larger than longer, 
> I also tag 
> >the road as a "tunnel". If a road goes along a mountain which is 
> >partially dug (one side and roof is the mountain, other side 
> is open) I 
> >also tag it as a "tunnel".
> >Pieren
> 
> Seems like a little over use of "tunnel" in my opinion, but I 
> accept it as personal preference. And, it is a solution, 
> where I don't necessarily have one at this point for all those cases.
> 
> As far as wide bridges are concerned, I would probably not 
> tag two lanes under six lanes as a tunnel, but would just use 
> bridge for the six, and maxheight:physical= on a highway 
> segment for the two. But, now I'm getting a bit off subject.
> 
> --
> Randy
> 
> 
> 
>