[Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"

[Randy]

Tobias Knerr wrote:

>Randy wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
>If I understand you correctly, this tag is supposed to be used for
>ways/areas that are under buildings, not for hallways, rooms etc.
>inside buildings.
>
>You chose an example that is clearly not a tunnel ("open on three
>sides"), though. Therefore, some additional examples: Which of the
>following, if any, would use covered=yes?

In my opinion,
>
>http://www.bahnfotokiste.de/s_bahn/blankenese/blankenese_6.html

Covered on the left, probably covered on the right, but I would have no 
problem with tunnel on the right.
>
>http://www.skyduck.de/In_Japan/In_Wort_Bild/Sights_Festivals/Osaka_Trip/Building.jpg

Toss up. Could be covered or tunnel. (Or how about another tag 
"road_piercing_middle_of_building=yes") Tunnel would probably be more 
appropriate, but considering how complex the layering is, I'd probably be 
lazy and just say covered.  (Leave it to the Japanese :-) I was in Osaka 
last May, but unfortunately didn't have the privilege of gazing on this 
beauty.
>
>http://tobias-knerr.de/misc/osmexamples/NK_s.jpg
>(the always-open "gate" in the building in the background)
>
I can't tell if that is a vehicle road or a pedestrian way. In either 
case, I'd probably call it a tunnel.

>http://tobias-knerr.de/misc/osmexamples/Durchlauferhitzer_s.jpg

Definitely covered. The layer tagging here isn't as difficult at my case 
of a building with a contiguous floor over a parking area. I would have no 
problem tagging the pedestrian overpass as layer=1 while tagging both 
buildings and road as layer=0, but I'd still call this covered, not a 
tunnel.

There is certainly some personal judgement invoked in differentiating some 
of these. I think of the characteristics of "covered" as either being 
wider than long, relatively open, or having some flexibility in travel 
direction, such as my original example (which would not apply to railed).

My rendering suggestion for "covered" was oriented toward vehicle 
highways. A different rendering would be appropriate for covered cycle and 
pedestrian ways, as long as it distinguished them from their respective 
open ways.

I have not attempted mapping any building interiors at this point, so 
don't really know if the "covered=yes" tag would be appropriate for 
non-higways or not. Also, I haven't done enough tagging in that area of 
waterways to feel confident saying whether I think "covered" would be 
useful in that area, either.

Those are very interesting cases you showed. Thanks.

-- 
Randy