[Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

[Dan S]

2014-08-14 11:40 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:
> 2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com>:
>
>> 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
>>>
>>> Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
>>> cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two
>>> cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is
>>> valuable information.
>>>
>>> Obviously?  Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for
>>> tourism, I wonder...
>>
>>
>> Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion,
>> a "tunnel" is man-made, while a "cave" is not.
>
>
> Neither OSM wiki nor Wikipedia restricts it this way. There is even section
> about natural tunnels - see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Natural_tunnels (though caves are not
> mentioned there).
>
> Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible, worse than for
> example using highway as tag also for private roads.

As a native speaker I may as well chip in, and say I have no problem
at all with "tunnel" referring to a natural tunnel as part of a cave
system.

> But I see absolutely no benefit from a completely separate tagging (that
> nobody would support).

Well, no-one ever supports "new" tagging, the question is if it's
needed. But I agree, I can't see a benefit keeping it separate.

Dan