[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Oct 14 14:43:53 BST 2011

2011/10/14 John Sturdy <jcg.sturdy at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What about covered=yes?
>> or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
>> don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition.
> Well, we already have location=underground established (see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would
> be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is
> underground.

+1, completely agree that having more then 1 way to tag the same
aspect of a feature is a pity. The established way is covered, at
least it has a definition in the wiki and dates back to 2009 + it is
used more often (covered, usage: "C. denote an area such as an
underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such
things as an aquarium (e.g., Kelly Tarlton's, Auckland, NZ), when the
covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer
differentiation."). The location page dates back to July 2011 and has
no real definition on it. To avoid this mess of duplicate tagging
categories there is the proposal process.

However, I also agree with Pieren that it could be useful to
distinguish between underground buildings and all kind of covered
features (many mappers might not be interested in underground
buildings but they might be in covered stuff on the surface).

My suggestion is to go with location=underground and mark the
covered=yes for underground structures as deprecated.


More information about the Tagging mailing list