[Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

[André Pirard]

On 2014-08-14 13:35, John Packer wrote :
> One question.
> How would people map a cave?
It depends on your definition of "how" but this could be an answer
<http://www.mondesauvage.be/grottes/fr/>.
> As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously
> there is no sattelite imagery for them.
"routing" was obviously a free bonus, but please notice that you don't
really need a GPS signal (or device) to follow a route drawn on a map. 
You don't even need to enter the cave if all you want is measure the
length of one or several circuits.  GPS lack is the problem of tracking
the route.

> I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now.
>
>
>
> 2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com
> <mailto:A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>>:
>
>     On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote :
>>     2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com
>>     <mailto: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.
>
>     "tunnel" is an attribute of an object called "highway", including
>     the paths in question.
>     "cave:NNN=*" are attributes of objects "natural
>     <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=cave_entrance"
>     <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance>,
>     obviously speleology and not path oriented.
>     "cave=*" is not defined.
>     I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using
>     "cave=yes" for paths would first need a definition of it in the
>     "highway=*"  page.
>
>     This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes,
>     let alone routing support.
>     Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They
>     just work or don't.
>     Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n?  And
>     cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an
>     adorning cave or whatever made up tag?
>
>     André.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140814/45e62d7a/attachment.html>