Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: <redacted>
In general, I think we're in agreement, although I do have a slightly more liberal view of tunnels than you. I certainly wouldn't tag above ground tunnels without what I consider a really good reason. Since your second example, http://www.blogwiese.ch/wp-content/emmitunnel.jpg was a railway, covered would probably not imply anything more than tunnel, so, with no more data about the structure than available from the photo, I would have no problem with NOT tagging that as a tunnel. However, personally, if a parallel pedestrian way and road passed through a building, and there was a wall separating them so that there was no access between the two while going through the building, and there was no access to the building from either, I would most likely tag them as tunnels, rather than covered, to show the access restrictions. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one. I might also tag a short section of the highway as "covered" in your first example, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCckenrasthaus_Frankenwald. Granted, that would be tagging for the renderers, because I am aware they have a real technical problem with properly rendering layers. And, that if I was a purist, I would not do that. However, it is not an untrue tag, and I'm an engineer, not a scientist. Tnanks, Martin. Your dialog has really been constructive to me. While we may not be in 100% agreement, at least I have a clearer understanding of why I might disagree on a few occasions, and have skewed my understanding a little in your direction. I'll wait a couple more days to see if there are anymore comments on the "covered" issue. If not, I'll construct something in the wiki. -- Randy _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
