2009/11/2 Randy
>
> I did look up the definition of tunnel in my Webster's Unabridged, and
> will concede that, that particular dictionary did seemingly restrict it to
> underground. However, in the verb form it defined creating a passage under
> or through something.
So I guess if you tunnel th
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>I think "underground" is an unfortunate qualifier on tunnels, and I'd like
>>to see it removed.
>
>
>no.
>
>
>>First of all, it's inaccurate. Look at the online
>>dictionaries.
>
>
>no, don't look at "online dictionaries" when talking about technical issues
>that ar
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2009/10/31 Randy
>> Secondly, if adopted strictly, if forces the creation of a
>> separate tag with identical functionality for the above ground case.
>
> Which does make sense. A tunnel going underground can be crossed mostly
> without
2009/10/31 Randy
> >I'm still not sure if my example should be tagged with "tunnel" or
> >not. To my mind something doesn't become a tunnel just because you
> >build something over top of it. According to the wiki, "The tunnel
> >tag is used to map ways that runs through an underground passage.
Anthony wrote:
>I've been thinking about this, and I do support your proposal.
>However, renderers should take care of this even if it isn't tagged
>this way.
Agreed, so long as there is a decipherable method of otherwise tagging it.
But, let me qualify that: "Agreed, in theory. However, I don't
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Anthony wrote:
> If a highway and a building cross at the same layer, the
> building should be made partially transparent so the way can be seen
> to be covering it.
Covering it -> covered by it.
___
Tagging mailing li
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Randy wrote:
> In addition to providing a proper tagging method, there is an added
> benefit. There has been a continuing series of rendering bug reports about
> roads being on top of buildings rather than under them, independent of
> layering. This property tag wo
Ed Hillsman wrote:
>I would welcome any suggestions you have on how to deal with the open-
>building situations, the student center, or shade. Yes, in a way, these
>are minor, even trivial situations, but they contribute to the quality of
>the local environment, and it would be good to be abl
I've come to this discussion late, because the tagging listserv is
relatively new, and I haven't been monitoring it regularly. I don't
have anything like a definitive suggestion to Randy's original problem
or the variants added to it in the subsequent discussion, but I'd like
to add somethi
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>2009/10/30 Pieren
>
>>On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy
>>
>>wrote:
>>>Possibly just "building=roof"
>>>would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it).
>>
>>I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover"
>>on the element on the top i
2009/10/30 Pieren
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy
> wrote:
> > Possibly just "building=roof"
> > would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it).
>
> I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover"
> on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Splitting the building into two parts, one at layer=0, touching the
> parking area, and one at layer=1, encompassing both the area next to
> and under the parking area, is another solution. It's similar to what
> we'd do with a highway when we wan
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy wrote:
>> Possibly just "building=roof"
>> would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it).
>
> I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover"
> on the element on the top instead o
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy wrote:
> Possibly just "building=roof"
> would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it).
I have a much bigger preference to "building=roof" or "building=cover"
on the element on the top instead of some attribute on some
hypothetical element below .
Add
Tobias Knerr wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
>If I understand you correctly, this tag is supposed to be used for
>ways/a
Anthony wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Randy
> wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
>Would that be used for this:
>http://images
Tobias Knerr wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
>If I understand you correctly, this tag is supposed to be used for
>ways/a
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Randy wrote:
> I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
> for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
> roof attached to a building, etc.
Would that be used for this:
http://images.loopnet.com/xnet/main
Randy wrote:
> I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
> for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
> roof attached to a building, etc.
If I understand you correctly, this tag is supposed to be used for
ways/areas that are *under* b
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Randy
> Sent: 28 October 2009 21:04
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Highway property proposal "covered=yes"
I have run into several situations where a service road extends under a
covered area, such as a building.
Layering is one way to tag the building/road system, but, technically, it
is not always a correct way. Example: a building on the ground is at layer
0, associated with any pedestrian ways l
21 matches
Mail list logo
