Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 24, 2020, 07:22 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Draw the bridge outline and tag it with man_made=bridge name=* and you’ll >> see what I mean. >> > > Thanks Martin - yep, it works! > >

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

That's correct. It's still important to mark the highway features with bridge=yes so that database users will know that the road or path is on a bridge. Drawing the man_made=bridge outline is a way to map the area and shape of the bridge itself, but it doesn't affect the rivers and roads around

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Draw the bridge outline and tag it with man_made=bridge name=* and you’ll > see what I mean. > Thanks Martin - yep, it works! https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.13129/153.48123 Have just fixed a few of them in the general area

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On 24/08/2020 01:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 23:45, Paul Allen > wrote: Theyargued that name should be the name of the road and bridge:name should be used for the name of the bridge.  Which did nothing to change all the

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 02:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> Fortunately OpenStreetMap Carto incentivizes mapping of bridges now (man >> made explicit bridges), so it will probably become the preferred mapping >> style sooner or later > > As with many things, the best

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > Theyargued that name should be the name of the road and bridge:name should > be used for the name of the bridge. Which did nothing to change all > the existing bridges mapped the old way, and didn't get incorporated > in carto immediately (has

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 15:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > I have a vague recollection of bridge:name being introduced because some > people were unhappy with using name for the name of the bridge. They > argued that name should be the name of the road and bridge:name should > be

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Volker Schmidt 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

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 13:31, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I guess that what we have is another case of two (in reality three) > tagging practices for (nearly) the same thing. > Yep. My increasingly-fallible memory may be letting me down here, but I have a vague recollection of bridge:name being

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

I guess that what we have is another case of two (in reality three) tagging practices for (nearly) the same thing. 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

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:22, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I'm only applying *exactly* > what's currently documented on the wiki's name=* page, which considers > pragmatics instead of semantics. > > In other words, instead of

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 15 August: > On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen wrote: >> >> Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, >> and thus belongs into the name=* tag. >> >> The full name tagging for a road tunnel should usually look like this: >>

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 15, 2020, 23:48 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen wrote: >> >> Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, >> and thus belongs into the name=* tag. >> >> The full name tagging for a road

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, and > thus belongs into the name=* tag. > > The full name tagging for a road tunnel should usually look like this: > > name=The Tunnel >

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

dktue wrote: > Am 15.08.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> [...] For all of our common usecases, mapping the way through the tunnel and >> indicating it is inside a tunnel is sufficient, that’s why we do not map >> them in greater detail so far). An implicit tunnel is considered

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

As long as it explicitly notes that  name and tunnel:name may be the same I am ok with that 15 Aug 2020, 12:19 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 15.08.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > >> IMHO a tunnel is more than the way through it, the ventilation shafts, >> escape ways, also arguably

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Am 15.08.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: IMHO a tunnel is more than the way through it, the ventilation shafts, escape ways, also arguably all the tubes, could be considered „the tunnel“. The reason it is not done typically is that these features aren’t very visible (mostly

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 01:21, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > That's precisely why man_made=tunnel is so rare. IMHO a tunnel is more than the way through it, the ventilation shafts, escape ways, also arguably all the tubes, could be considered „the tunnel“. The reason it is

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > IMHO a feature with highway=* and tunnel =yes is not a tunnel but a road > inside a tunnel. IMHO it's not either/or, it's both at the same time. But I don't think it really matters. In most cases, there is no practical difference between the road in a tunnel

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 00:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > However, name=* should always contain the primary name of a feature. For a > road tunnel, the primary name is typically the tunnel's name, as the tunnel > is usually a more prominent feature than the road is. IMHO

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

dktue wrote: > > Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as > "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, > Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). It's not clear if the part of the road inside the tunnel is named at all (perhaps not, as it

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Am 14.08.2020 um 16:21 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: If name of tunnel is also name of road then name tag should be fine. how would you know whether the name is for the road or the tunnel if there is only a name tag? What

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > If name of tunnel is also name of road then name tag should be fine. how would you know whether the name is for the road or the tunnel if there is only a name tag? What about setting both tags with

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 14, 2020, 14:37 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 14.08.2020 um 14:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > >> >> >> >> Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by >> em...@daniel-korn.de>> : >> >>> Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be >>> tagged as "name". I'm not sure

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Am 14.08.2020 um 14:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by em...@daniel-korn.de: Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, Hegelstraße or

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as > "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, > Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). Tagging it to tunnel:name would definitely > clarify on this.

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

I definitely agree: If the tunnel (or more often used: the bridge) is a separate object (e.g. man_made=bridge), then the tunnel's or bridge's name should go in the name-tag. But my impression is that if it's the same object as the highway (or railway or waterway) itself then "tunnel:name" or

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 13. Aug 2020, at 14:12, dktue wrote: > > the wiki states since more than eight years that there's a debate about > wether one should tag "tunnel:name" or "name". [1] > > Is there any new opinion in the community on this topic that has not been > documented in the

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). Tagging it to tunnel:name would definitely clarify on this. So is there a consensus that one should tag

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On 13/08/2020 08.10, dktue wrote: the wiki states since more than eight years that there's a debate about wether one should tag "tunnel:name" or "name". [1] Is there any new opinion in the community on this topic that has not been documented in the wiki? How is the tunnel tagged? If it's a