[Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

[Dave F]

On 12/09/2016 01:15, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 11.09.2016 17:53, Dave F napisał(a):
>
>> Well, OK. 'Classification' then (which gives indications to who can 
>> use it).
>
> I still hold my position. Classification doesn't tell who can use it, 
> rather the purpose.

Hmm.. 'Motorway', when first mapped, had the assumption of  a surface 
suitable to take vehicles at high speed & bike riders weren't permitted.
This is now gradually changing with specific sub-tag to clarify.

> Service road and corridor are clear about it: first is for "last mile" 
> servicing roads (and not who can drive there), the second one is for 
> connecting rooms inside the building.

I've no idea what you're talking about here.

>
>> How are they second class?
>
>> This is where secondary tags become useful. If renderers wants to
>
> This is exactly why it is a second class citizen - it needs a 
> secondary tagging.

Err.. No. It gives clarity & detail. See my note about motorways above.

> What would you say if we had:
>
> highway=road
> road:class=primary
> road:link=yes
>
> instead of highway=primary_link? And this sub-type has only 250k of uses.

I'd say use primary_link as it involves less typing, but both are equal 
in meaning & standing.

> Highway=path may be as generic as say highway=road, highway=pedestrian 
> is more or less as luxury as motorway - and we have highway=footway 
> for all the other uses. Even path/footway difference is not clear, so 
> we try to fix it with adding surface.

Yes. Richard Faihurst has called for the end of 'path'. All should be 
footway & defined further by using sub-tags.

>
>> show, for instance, all paths in one style, they easily can by
>> filtering just highway=footway* If they want to differentiate
>> different surfaces*, access restrictions etc, they can do that by
>> referring to secondary tags.
>
> But you can also use surface for roads to differentiate them. Yet we 
> mainly rely on roads purpose, not the surface.

Again, see my motorway comment.

>
> Pedestrian ways can be also serving different purposes (and so they 
> should have different rendering, as we do for roads):
> - corridors
> - cemetery, park and allotments alleys
> - long-distance outdoor hiking trails
> - sidewalk
> - crossing
> - via ferrata
>
> and probably some other specific types for which we even have a proper 
> name for.

Well, yes & no
Yes: This is done using sub-tags as I clearly showed above.
No: You know cemetery & park paths are cemetery & park paths because 
they're in a cemetery or park. (OSM is geospatially aware - see 
discussions in Talk about is_in tag)

Dave F.