I would have thought tunnel (and layer =-1) was only appropriate if the road was significantly physically below the prevailing ground level in the area. Otherwise I would tend to keep the road at layer=0 and (and implicitly tunnel=no) and adjust the layer values of other features as necessary. Just a personal opinion but my gut feel is that layer=0 is the level of the surrounding terrain?
Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 27 October 2009 19:22 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-newbies] Road below a building > > Pieren wrote: > > >On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Arlindo Pereira <[email protected]> > >wrote: > >>we should not tag for the renderer > > > >I'm not talking about rendering but modeling. A covered road with a > >limited height is a kind of tunnel. Or how do you tag a road > covered by > >a simple roof ? Many people do that. When a stream or a river goes > >under ground through maybe a pipeline, I also tag it with "tunnel". > >When a road goes below a bridge which is larger than longer, > I also tag > >the road as a "tunnel". If a road goes along a mountain which is > >partially dug (one side and roof is the mountain, other side > is open) I > >also tag it as a "tunnel". > >Pieren > > Seems like a little over use of "tunnel" in my opinion, but I > accept it as personal preference. And, it is a solution, > where I don't necessarily have one at this point for all those cases. > > As far as wide bridges are concerned, I would probably not > tag two lanes under six lanes as a tunnel, but would just use > bridge for the six, and maxheight:physical= on a highway > segment for the two. But, now I'm getting a bit off subject. > > -- > Randy > > > > _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
