Re: [Tagging] Breezeway (alternative to the tunnel and covered options)

Ed Hillsman wrote: >Ed > >Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D. >Senior Research Associate >Center for Urban Transportation Research >University of South Florida >4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100 >Tampa, FL 33620-5375 >813-974-2977 (tel) >813-974-5168 (fax) >hills...@cutr.usf.edu (but writing from home) >http://www

Re: [Tagging] Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map FeaturesProperties

Anthony wrote: >From: Anthony >Subject: Re: Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map FeaturesProperties >Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:39:09 -0500 >Message-ID: <71cd4dd90911031439x6c9db846gc0505d2b7c484...@mail.gmail.com> >Lines: 15 > >On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Pieren > wrote: >>I think you have t

[Tagging] Breezeway (alternative to the tunnel and covered options)

I spoke about the "tunnel"/"covered" problem to some students here interested in OSM, and one of them said "Oh, you mean a breezeway". Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breezeway offers a description, and two illustrations via external links, that suggest the term "breezeway" fits a

[Tagging] Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map Features Properties

I've added the key/value "covered=yes" to the Map Features property section. The purpose is to provide for tagging of nodes/ways/areas which are covered by another object, such as a building, where it is not appropriate to designate them at different layers. It may also be used to designate bur

Re: [Tagging] Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map Features Properties

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Pieren wrote: > I think you have to move this on a > Proposal page first as many did in the past and provide a better > description explaining where are the limits of its usage (when it is a > tunnel and when not). (for instance, the definition about tunnel being >

Re: [Tagging] Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map Features Properties

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Randy wrote: > I've added the key/value "covered=yes" to the Map Features property > section. The purpose is to provide for tagging of nodes/ways/areas which > are covered by another object, such as a building, where it is not > appropriate to designate them at diff

Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highwaypropertyproposal "covered-yes")

2009/11/3 Randy > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I concede. > > In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated > underground and a "cut and cover" is not truly a tunnel. > > So the question now is how to tag an above ground "tunnel-like" structure > to properly indicate

Re: [Tagging] Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map Features Properties

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Pieren wrote: I forgot: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highwaypropertyproposal "covered-yes")

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Randy wrote: > So the question now is how to tag an above ground "tunnel-like" structure > to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is "completely enclosed on > all sides, save for the openings at each end". For what purpose? Covered=yes, barrier=highway?

Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highwaypropertyproposal "covered-yes")

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I concede. In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated underground and a "cut and cover" is not truly a tunnel. So the question now is how to tag an above ground "tunnel-like" structure to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is "