[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highway property proposal "covered-yes")
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 22:44:40 GMT 2009
2009/11/2 Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com>
> 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
> >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.
of course, I would tag it like that as well, but the current problem is with
mapnik: it doesn't respect the layer-tag on buildings. I would tag the
building as building=yes (or function), bridge=yes, layer=1 as it is a
bridge-construction. The motorway would not have any special tags as it is a
> 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.
IMHO that's a problem: as I tried to point out: a normal (and real) tunnel
is not an obstacle, you can cross it at ground level (that is above the
tunnel) with no problem and probably without even knowing that there is a
tunnel. THe construction in the picture would IMHO be a good example for
covered=yes. It is not a tunnel and should not be tagged as such.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging