[Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 21:05:57 UTC 2017


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04-Oct-17 07:39 AM, marc marc wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 03. 10. 17 à 21:46, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
>>>
>>> is there particular tagging that I should
>>> be using where ways cross because of natural topography?
>>> 'covered=yes'? Something else?
>>
>> you can/should put layer to parts of ways that don't cross
>
>
>
> Nominally layer=0 is 'ground level'. In these situations the 'ground level'
> folds back on itself - so both 'layers' are nominally 0.
>
> I have a similar situation and have simply used covered=yes.
> As there are no other paths that cross there is no conflict for my
> situation.
> The cliff line crosses the path .. but that should cause no problem
> (rendering, routing or?)?

OK, yeah, I forgot 'layer' - and I think I'd use the rule, if you look up to
the zenith and see rock, you're at a layer less than zero.

And, yeah, 'natural=cliff' is on the "to do" list. I've only recently
started adding those, since when I render my own maps, I use
contour lines from NED. ("Cliff" is still nice to have, since
topographic features lurk in between the contours.)



More information about the Tagging mailing list