2011/10/14 John Sturdy <jcg.stu...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What about covered=yes? >> or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who >> don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition. > Well, we already have location=underground established (see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would > be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is > underground.
+1, completely agree that having more then 1 way to tag the same aspect of a feature is a pity. The established way is covered, at least it has a definition in the wiki and dates back to 2009 + it is used more often (covered, usage: "C. denote an area such as an underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such things as an aquarium (e.g., Kelly Tarlton's, Auckland, NZ), when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer differentiation."). The location page dates back to July 2011 and has no real definition on it. To avoid this mess of duplicate tagging categories there is the proposal process. However, I also agree with Pieren that it could be useful to distinguish between underground buildings and all kind of covered features (many mappers might not be interested in underground buildings but they might be in covered stuff on the surface). My suggestion is to go with location=underground and mark the covered=yes for underground structures as deprecated. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
