sent from a phone
> On 23. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@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 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
