[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highway propertyproposal "covered-yes")
rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 3 00:01:41 GMT 2009
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
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
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
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.
More information about the Tagging