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

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 3 00:01:41 GMT 2009


Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

<redacted>

In general, I think we're in agreement, although I do have a slightly more 
liberal view of tunnels than you. I certainly wouldn't tag above ground 
tunnels without what I consider a really good reason. Since your second 
example,
http://www.blogwiese.ch/wp-content/emmitunnel.jpg
was a railway, covered would probably not imply anything more than tunnel, 
so, with no more data about the structure than available from the photo, I 
would have no problem with NOT tagging that as a tunnel. However, 
personally, if a parallel pedestrian way and road passed through a 
building, and there was a wall separating them so that there was no access 
between the two while going through the building, and there was no access 
to the building from either, I would most likely tag them as tunnels, 
rather than covered, to show the access restrictions. We'll probably just 
have to agree to disagree on that one.

I might also tag a short section of the highway as "covered" in your first 
example, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCckenrasthaus_Frankenwald. 
Granted, that would be tagging for the renderers, because I am aware they 
have a real technical problem with properly rendering layers. And, that if 
I was a purist, I would not do that. However, it is not an untrue tag, and 
I'm an engineer, not a scientist.

Tnanks, Martin. Your dialog has really been constructive to me. While we 
may not be in 100% agreement, at least I have a clearer understanding of 
why I might disagree on a few occasions, and have skewed my understanding 
a little in your direction.

I'll wait a couple more days to see if there are anymore comments on the 
"covered" issue. If not, I'll construct something in the wiki.

-- 
Randy





More information about the Tagging mailing list