[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 11:22:39 GMT 2009

2009/11/4 Richard Bullock <rb357 at cantab.net>

> We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as
> long as the meaning is clear;
> exactly, this is not generally about dictionary definitions but about the
meaning of words. Dictionaries can give you hints if you're unsure. If we
use tunnel for all kind of holes you can creep in, the meaning will no
longer be clear.

> If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck.
> +1. And if it doesn't walk like a duck _and_ talk like a duck it is not a

> A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that
> building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel.

a passageway through a building that is not inside that building will be
hard to find. (how do you define: is not inside?)

> It doesn't necessarily
> matter whether the "tunnel" is through a brick-built structure instead of,
> say, a man-made earth embankment or natural hill.
> I'd keep it simple and look for the relation width/length. If it is at
least double the length than the width and below ground, I could agree on
tunnel even if it is formally not one (but only if it is not a bridge).

> By all means expand the tunnel key like others have done with bridge=* to
> describe the tunnel properties;
> in which way bridge has been expanded?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091104/b23f8c1c/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list