[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
osm at inbox.org
Thu Nov 5 01:12:59 GMT 2009
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anthony
>><osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>><dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>2009/11/4 Richard Bullock <rb357 at cantab.net>
>>>>>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?)
>>Currently tagged as a "tunnel", although positioned incorrectly
>>Which is fine, as long as the definition of tunnel is changed. The
>>definition needs to be changed, because I don't want my routing device
>>to tell me to "make a right and go through the tunnel". And I don't
>>want dotted lines when these passages are rendered - because if I look
>>at that I'm going to expect something that goes underground, and I'm
>>going to be confused when there's no tunnel, but just a building which
>>was built over top of a road.
> From the picture, it appears that where the road is covered by the
> building there is actually a pedestrian way and doors into the building
> from the highway. If that's the case, then it is clearly not a tunnel, be
> it above or below ground.
> How would you like to see something like that rendered besides dashed. Oh,
> you said not dotted. Is dashed OK?
No. I don't really know if this is considered dashed or dotted, but
to me, the dashed/dotted lines in this image represents a tunnel, not
a road with a building (or other road) over top of it:
I'm not sure that the situation at the Tampa MOSI has to be rendered
any differently than any other road. The road itself is just a normal
service road. If you do want to render it differently, that's fine
too, but then choose something new - don't render it the same way as
something else (like a tunnel), because that's confusing.
For the proposal, apparently we're supposed to choose a rendering
style (personally I don't even like this - the renderers should choose
how to render, the mappers should just provide them with unambiguous
data, i.e. not tagging a tunnel and a non-tunnel with the same tag).
I proposed "use a fill pattern" to represent the cover. But for this
situation, I'd prefer Martin's proposal: "the way is a normal way and
map the building". The building should be partially transparent, so
that the way can be seen underneath it, of course.
More information about the Tagging