[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highway property proposal "covered-yes")

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 2 21:44:24 GMT 2009

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>Here is some examples (talk-de) what some people think to be accurately
>tagged as tunnel whilst it will obfuscate the database if we would.
>this one is not rendered correctly if just using layer=1 on the building 
>to mapnik rules (they always render ways above buildings and do not respect
>layers for these cases).
>this one produces the "obstacle-problem" you would not have with a real

I can understand someone's logic in tagging your first example as a 
tunnel, but I would tag it


Or, if you didn't want to show the pedestrian way, just make it a building 
layered on over the highway. It is sufficiently different, functionally 
and architecturally, from the connecting buildings do that.

For your second example, yes, I'd be tempted to tag it as a tunnel, since 
it doesn't seem to span anything. There are always the rare exceptions to 
every rule. But, I'd want to know more about its function and what, if 
anything it is attached to, before I did anything. It appears to be just 
sitting there with no purpose from the vantage point of the photograph. It 
certainly doesn't appear to be a covered bridge. If it is a covered rail 
station, then I would probably tag is as covered railway rather than a 
tunnel, assuming "covered" becomes an accepted property for highways and 


More information about the Tagging mailing list