[Tagging] Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map FeaturesProperties

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 4 06:43:23 GMT 2009


Anthony wrote:

>From: Anthony <osm at inbox.org>
>Subject: Re: Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map FeaturesProperties
>Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:39:09 -0500
>Message-ID: <71cd4dd90911031439x6c9db846gc0505d2b7c484caa at mail.gmail.com>
>Lines: 15
>
>On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Pieren 
><pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>I think you have to move this on a
>>Proposal page first as many did in the past and provide a better
>>description explaining where are the limits of its usage (when it is a
>>tunnel and when not). (for instance, the definition about tunnel being
>>only underground is not correct).
>
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel already explains when
>something is a tunnel and when it is not.  It says "The tunnel tag is
>used to map ways that runs through an underground passage."
>
>If someone wants to change this definition (which is neither correct
>nor incorrect), wouldn't they need to be the one to make the proposal?
>
>Anthony

I appreciate the proposal page, and will update it with my thoughts. 
However, I agree with Anthony. The "covered" proposal is not the place to 
discuss what is and is not a tunnel. The tunnel page is the place for 
that. There is apparently quite a bit of disagreement about what is and is 
not a tunnel, and that may be addressed elsewhere. Whatever a tunnel is, 
the covered property is unnecessary for a tunnel, because tunnel implies a 
cover.

-- 
Randy





More information about the Tagging mailing list