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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 19:17:24 GMT 2009


2009/11/3 Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com>

> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> I concede.
>
> In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated
> underground and a "cut and cover" is not truly a tunnel.
>
> So the question now is how to tag an above ground "tunnel-like" structure
> to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is "completely enclosed on
> all sides, save for the openings at each end".
>

I would call them covered=yes (attribute)
or maybe covered=all_sides

yes, and how to tag a partly enclosed structure like a gallery in alpine
regions (usually covered on top and closed on one side by a heavy concrete
structure to protect the street from falling rock and snow).
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Galeriestra%C3%9Fe_cropped.jpg&filetimestamp=20080413091504
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Galeriestra%C3%9Fe.png&filetimestamp=20040809082744

so this could be covered=gallery

Even though gallery is somehow ambiguous if I recall right.

btw: those "cut and cover"-structures are indeed considered tunnels in some
building standards when they're logger than 80 metres (German Standard) or
~160 metres (american standard as of wikipedia:en). Should we ignore this
for simplicity or would it meet with what you usually expect by a tunnel?

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091103/c45482ec/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list