Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
Anthony wrote: By the way... On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: From the picture, it appears that where the road is covered by the building there is actually a pedestrian way and doors into the building from the highway. If that's the case, then it is clearly not a tunnel, be it above or below ground. If it were underground (with doors into a basement), I'd probably call it a tunnel. Are subway platforms tunnels? Some are, some aren't. Something like New York City Hall Station (yeah, I know it's closed) is clearly a subway tunnel station. Then there's situations like much of the Boston MBTA or the San Fransisco MUNI or the Portland MAX Blue Line, which are all light rail systems with some (or even mostly) underground stations, not technically subways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
I concede. In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated underground and a cut and cover is not truly a tunnel. So the question now is how to tag an above ground tunnel-like structure to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is completely enclosed on all sides, save for the openings at each end. We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck. I wouldn't hesitate to tag a cut-and-cover structure as a tunnel in OSM. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. It doesn't necessarily matter whether the tunnel is through a brick-built structure instead of, say, a man-made earth embankment or natural hill. By all means expand the tunnel key like others have done with bridge=* to describe the tunnel properties; e.g tunnel = cut_and_cover / tunnel = avalanche_tunnel etc. But I think the key here is that tunnel=yes should be allowable to get the basic meaning across without an editor requiring to be an expert in tunnel construction. Of course there will be edge cases, but we don't have to go and invent a million new keys to describe similar, but not identical, classes of object. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
oh and I forgot to give a word of warning in the other direction. Some structures that you might think are bridges are actually tunnels because of the way they were constructed, but I'll leave that to another day ;-) Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Bullock Sent: 04 November 2009 9:39 AM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was I concede. In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated underground and a cut and cover is not truly a tunnel. So the question now is how to tag an above ground tunnel-like structure to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is completely enclosed on all sides, save for the openings at each end. We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck. I wouldn't hesitate to tag a cut-and-cover structure as a tunnel in OSM. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. It doesn't necessarily matter whether the tunnel is through a brick-built structure instead of, say, a man-made earth embankment or natural hill. By all means expand the tunnel key like others have done with bridge=* to describe the tunnel properties; e.g tunnel = cut_and_cover / tunnel = avalanche_tunnel etc. But I think the key here is that tunnel=yes should be allowable to get the basic meaning across without an editor requiring to be an expert in tunnel construction. Of course there will be edge cases, but we don't have to go and invent a million new keys to describe similar, but not identical, classes of object. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
2009/11/4 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com oh and I forgot to give a word of warning in the other direction. Some structures that you might think are bridges are actually tunnels because of the way they were constructed, but I'll leave that to another day ;-) Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Bullock Sent: 04 November 2009 9:39 AM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was I concede. In fact my OLD Encyclopadia Britannica states that a tunnel is excavated underground and a cut and cover is not truly a tunnel. So the question now is how to tag an above ground tunnel-like structure to properly indicate it's characteristics, that is completely enclosed on all sides, save for the openings at each end. We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck. I wouldn't hesitate to tag a cut-and-cover structure as a tunnel in OSM. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. It doesn't necessarily matter whether the tunnel is through a brick-built structure instead of, say, a man-made earth embankment or natural hill. By all means expand the tunnel key like others have done with bridge=* to describe the tunnel properties; e.g tunnel = cut_and_cover / tunnel = avalanche_tunnel etc. But I think the key here is that tunnel=yes should be allowable to get the basic meaning across without an editor requiring to be an expert in tunnel construction. Of course there will be edge cases, but we don't have to go and invent a million new keys to describe similar, but not identical, classes of object. This may be a stupid way of looking at but its the simlest I see. All Ways passing Under another Way are tunnels and all ways passing over another way are bridges. Why? Bridges have height restrictions? Clearly no, the way over the top does not have a height restriction but the way underneath does. The height restrictions needs to go on the way underneath not the bridge, which causes the restriction. On the other hand a tunnel may have a weight restriction which limits vehicles traveling over the tunnel, it would be stupid to tag the tunnel... I think the way this is going is that bridges and tunnels should be relations tagging which way(s) go over/under which other way(s) and what restrictions apply to what. The issue here is the difference between a tunnel and a bridge may be not as clear as it first looks. If someone tags a tunnel as a bridge and it looks like a bridge then fine, If someone later checks and has good reason to think its a tunnel really then change it, as long as its correct its fine. However the tags might refer just as much to the ways passing over the tunnel as to those passing under it. Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
2009/11/4 Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; exactly, this is not generally about dictionary definitions but about the meaning of words. Dictionaries can give you hints if you're unsure. If we use tunnel for all kind of holes you can creep in, the meaning will no longer be clear. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck. +1. And if it doesn't walk like a duck _and_ talk like a duck it is not a duck. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. a passageway through a building that is not inside that building will be hard to find. (how do you define: is not inside?) It doesn't necessarily matter whether the tunnel is through a brick-built structure instead of, say, a man-made earth embankment or natural hill. I'd keep it simple and look for the relation width/length. If it is at least double the length than the width and below ground, I could agree on tunnel even if it is formally not one (but only if it is not a bridge). By all means expand the tunnel key like others have done with bridge=* to describe the tunnel properties; in which way bridge has been expanded? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
2009/11/4 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2009/11/4 Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; exactly, this is not generally about dictionary definitions but about the meaning of words. Dictionaries can give you hints if you're unsure. If we use tunnel for all kind of holes you can creep in, the meaning will no longer be clear. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck. +1. And if it doesn't walk like a duck _and_ talk like a duck it is not a duck. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. a passageway through a building that is not inside that building will be hard to find. (how do you define: is not inside?) Its a Way under a building where the building is either on legs or exists above and on both sides on the way. The way not blocked by a door (to enter the building). However other barrier (eg Staggered Fence or Gate) may exist to limit access to the way. The way is however at ground level. That way maybe or any type including road, railway or waterway These are quite common in the Uk. (Do I need to find a photo) Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
2009/11/4 Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org 2009/11/4 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2009/11/4 Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; exactly, this is not generally about dictionary definitions but about the meaning of words. Dictionaries can give you hints if you're unsure. If we use tunnel for all kind of holes you can creep in, the meaning will no longer be clear. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then define it to be a duck. +1. And if it doesn't walk like a duck _and_ talk like a duck it is not a duck. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. a passageway through a building that is not inside that building will be hard to find. (how do you define: is not inside?) Its a Way under a building where the building is either on legs or exists above and on both sides on the way. The way not blocked by a door (to enter the building). However other barrier (eg Staggered Fence or Gate) may exist to limit access to the way. The way is however at ground level. (But may not be at ground level says he thinking of a few cases where its not true...) That way maybe or any type including road, railway or waterway These are quite common in the Uk. (Do I need to find a photo) Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
2009/11/4 Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org Its a Way under a building where the building is either on legs or exists above and on both sides on the way. The way not blocked by a door (to enter the building). However other barrier (eg Staggered Fence or Gate) may exist to limit access to the way. The way is however at ground level. That way maybe or any type including road, railway or waterway These are quite common in the Uk. (Do I need to find a photo) I'd say: map the lateral barriers (fences) if any, the way is a normal way and map the building. That is not a tunnel but a building above the way. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/4 Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net We don't *have* to stick to dictionary definitions here when tagging, as long as the meaning is clear; exactly, this is not generally about dictionary definitions but about the meaning of words. Dictionaries can give you hints if you're unsure. If we use tunnel for all kind of holes you can creep in, the meaning will no longer be clear. Personally I'm fine with a definition of tunnel that doesn't include underground. But we need a definition. So far no one seems to have provided one. A passageway through a building (but, say, without being inside that building) is, to all intents and purposes, a tunnel. a passageway through a building that is not inside that building will be hard to find. (how do you define: is not inside?) http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8client=firefox-aie=UTF8q=mosi+tampafb=1gl=ushq=mosihnear=tampacid=0,0,4145233176872570172ei=kpbxSpL3BtTY8Aa95d2MCQved=0CA0QnwIwAAll=28.054341,-82.404791spn=0,359.981289t=hz=16layer=ccbll=28.054341,-82.404885panoid=utISmaJ6ph__dBBezFDBpQcbp=12,185.93,,0,0.05 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Anthony wrote: And I don't want dotted lines when these passages are rendered - because if I look at that I'm going to expect something that goes underground, dotted lines on an Australian map would make me expect that the way was unsurfaced ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highway property proposal covered-yes)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Here is some examples (talk-de) what some people think to be accurately tagged as tunnel whilst it will obfuscate the database if we would. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCckenrasthaus_Frankenwald this one is not rendered correctly if just using layer=1 on the building due to mapnik rules (they always render ways above buildings and do not respect layers for these cases). http://www.blogwiese.ch/wp-content/emmitunnel.jpg this one produces the obstacle-problem you would not have with a real tunnel. I can understand someone's logic in tagging your first example as a tunnel, but I would tag it highway=pedestrian bridge=yes covered=yes Or, if you didn't want to show the pedestrian way, just make it a building layered on over the highway. It is sufficiently different, functionally and architecturally, from the connecting buildings do that. For your second example, yes, I'd be tempted to tag it as a tunnel, since it doesn't seem to span anything. There are always the rare exceptions to every rule. But, I'd want to know more about its function and what, if anything it is attached to, before I did anything. It appears to be just sitting there with no purpose from the vantage point of the photograph. It certainly doesn't appear to be a covered bridge. If it is a covered rail station, then I would probably tag is as covered railway rather than a tunnel, assuming covered becomes an accepted property for highways and such. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
