[Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 30 01:46:44 GMT 2009

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.

I'd like to amplify on what you said. "covered=yes" could be used for ways 
that are under something besides a building. For example, a buried power 
line that is "covered" by the ground (I couldn't find a reference to this 
situation under Power, and it's information of interest to excavators 
[maybe covered=yes, depth=1m]). An abandoned highway that is "covered" by 
a lake (information of interest to anglers). A buried gas/oil transmission 
line, a buried water main, etc. The concepts are a little different from 
what I had proposed for traveling ways, i.e., either open on some sides or 
not of restricted mobility as in a tunnel, but the general principle that 
they can't be appropriately defined by layers applies. Layer=-1 in most of 
these cases doesn't really define the situation, since even though a way 
may be at layer=-1, it isn't by default considered to be covered by the 
ground, and in the case of the lake, there is the issue of whether the 
ground that the road was built on is layer 0 or if the lake once it 
covered the ground is now level 0, unless you explicitly define level 0. I 
believe that "covered=yes" circumvents all of these issues.


More information about the Tagging mailing list