[Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 18:45:11 GMT 2009

2009/10/30 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Possibly just "building=roof"
> > would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it).
> I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover"
> on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some
> hypothetical element below .
> Adding the attribute "covered=yes" is not always possible, e.g. a
> large balcony covering only partially a river or a simple roof in
> farms (a open air shelter for animals or warehouse).
> If it is to help the renderers only, then it sounds as a synonym of
> "tunnel=yes".
+1, I agree that it would be better to map the covering object in an
appropriate way, and not to indirectly map it through attributes on the
covered object, e.g. in cases that a building covers a street beeing itself
a bridge (those cases currently are not displayed correctly in mapnik due to
a "bug by design", that is even with the building beeing on level 1 and
tagged as bridge=yes the street is displayed like it was on top of it).
On the other hand for galleries (covering structures like in alpine areas to
protect the street, but unlike a tunnel open to one or both sides) and
arcades (and colonades) I would prefer to have the attribute on the road.
Tunnel should be used for real tunnels and not for all kind of structures
where a street is covered.

Then there is a third kind of way: those that are completely inside
buildings (shopping malls, generally corridors and hallways, all kind of
indoor-ways). I'd like to see a Key indoor for those to stop the abusement
of the tunnel-key.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091030/fda7cd34/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list