[Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

[Peter Wendorff]

I agree on the general strategy, but in this case I don't think cave=yes
would work fine by itself as these are underground ways that require to
be interpreted as being underground.
With that it is required to interpret the new tag to handle these ways
in a useful way. Using tunnel=cave would make that easier as a fallback
to tunnel=yes creates useful results. This fallback does not
differentiate between cages and other tunnels, but it differentiates
cage tunnels from ways above ground.

regards
Peter

Am 14.08.2014 um 16:03 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> On 14.08.2014 12:47, Dan S wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Are you suggesting that there are no relevant differences between a
> man-made tunnel and a cave? I can think of a lot – naturally formed,
> uneven walls and floors, varying height and so on.
> 
> In general, it's also a lot easier for applications to treat two tags
> the same than to treat the same tag differently. So I think you really
> should distinguish between caves and tunnels.
> 
> If you don't want a new key, then use tunnel=cave or something. But in
> my opinion, cave=yes would also work fine.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>