[Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Aug 23 16:49:24 UTC 2020

sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I believe the existing practice is due to a lack of awareness and leads to ambiguity without a good reason  (i.e. data is worse than it must be), likely also due to “name” being rendered and tunnel:name not (mapping for the renderer)

> 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. 

we could raise awareness and ask for retagging, why not

> 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.

this only leads to a more complicated situation being set in stone rather than improved by removing ambiguity and making everyone’s life easier 

Cheers Martin 

More information about the Tagging mailing list