[Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Sun Aug 23 12:29:43 UTC 2020


I guess that what we have is another case of two (in reality three) tagging
practices for (nearly) the same thing.
name=* for a tunnel's name that is mapped with tunnel=yes seems to be
common practice (at least 760 motorway tunnels in Italy are tagged this
way).
On the other hand we do have many tunnels, where the road in the tunnel
does have a name, and in those cases that the tunnel does have a different
name from the road we need a tagging scheme, which seems to be
tunnel:name=* if we want to use tunnel=yes on the road, or man_made=tunnel
with its own name tag, if the user prefers this tagging scheme.
We cannot mandate to retag existing tunnels and we need to have at least
one tagging scheme in case of two different names. So be it.
What I would not do is to state that tunnel:name is preferred. I would
point out that we have the two solutions sketched above in case of separate
names for road and tunnel.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:22, Arne Johannessen <arne at thaw.de> wrote:
> >
> > That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I'm only applying *exactly*
> what's currently documented on the wiki's name=* page, which considers
> pragmatics instead of semantics.
> >
> > In other words, instead of focusing on the objective meaning of tags, it
> focuses on their meaning in context of real-world usage.
> >
> > In particular, as documented, name=* should contain the "common default
> name" of an element, whatever it may be. This means that for any particular
> element which e. g. has the two names Foo and Bar, but which is most
> commonly referred to by locals only as Bar, the Bar name should go into
> name=* and the Foo name into another appropriate name tag (alt_name=*,
> xyz:name=*, whatever fits).
>
>
> I would see it like this: if someone refers colloquially to a road in a
> tunnel, they will use the name of the tunnel because what they actually do
> is refer to the tunnel, not specifically the road in the tunnel. This does
> not have implications for our tagging such as you have proposed. It is not
> deductible from the „common default name“ definition, IMHO.
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200823/599ecabe/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list