GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 25 10:20:10 UTC 2015
I don't think that this is a strong point.
Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the
length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place
the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
node that looks good enough I use that.
On the other hand, I think we make
assumptions about the width of the road based on its
type (primary, secondary ,etc),
so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.
Von: Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 11:04
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote:
> Hi all,
> up to now I've used tunnel=culvert
> like this:
> 1) JOSM warns that a waterway and highway are crossing
> 2) I split the waterway into 3 parts and add
> tunnel=yes, layer=-1 to the short one in the middle (or
> split the road and add bridge=yes,layer=1)
> Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert
> on a node, but this is rarely used
> (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways)
> I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me,
> at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the
> road. In my eyes it is the same case as with a
But our model only marks the CENTER of the road not its extent.
So making it a node would mean you have an tunnel= with an extent/length
of near 0 ...
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
More information about the Tagging