Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Janko Mihelić]

I would add in the wiki that if the tag cave:name=* is absent, name=* can
be considered to be the name of the cave and the entrance. That way we are
consistent with the way the name tag was used until now.

Janko

sri, 7. ruj 2016. u 12:25 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> 2016-09-07 12:08 GMT+02:00 Richard :
>
>> 16477 of natural=cave_entrance + name out there. Redefining the meaning of
>> name at this point might not be a good idea.
>>
>
>
> it is at the most a "re-redefining" because originally on the cave
> entrance page there was no mention of "name" referring to a different
> object than the one that is tagged. It would also be completely confusing
> to make such a definition and it would be in contradiction to the
> definition of the tag "name".
>
> For practical reasons, I don't think it will create problems as the name
> of the cave can very often also be considered the name of the cave entrance.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-07 12:08 GMT+02:00 Richard :

> 16477 of natural=cave_entrance + name out there. Redefining the meaning of
> name at this point might not be a good idea.
>


it is at the most a "re-redefining" because originally on the cave entrance
page there was no mention of "name" referring to a different object than
the one that is tagged. It would also be completely confusing to make such
a definition and it would be in contradiction to the definition of the tag
"name".

For practical reasons, I don't think it will create problems as the name of
the cave can very often also be considered the name of the cave entrance.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 12:15:16AM +0200, ksg wrote:
> 
> > Am 06.09.2016 um 09:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
> > 
> > 2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> > Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that 
> > "name" on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you all for your contributions,
> 
> Sorry I know I’m late, but was there any positive feedback?
> 
> > I have now modified the cave entrance page accordingly to make clear that 
> > this is the entrance object, i.e.
> > name should be the name of the entrance
> > cave:name of the cave it leads to
> 
> I understand your intention to remove the inconsistent semantics in cave:ref 
> vs name. But redefining a name tag that is already widespread used (22k 
> objects) is tricky. I would suspect that many cave entrances have no specific 
> names, particularly small caves with just one access. 
> 
> So we should propose that cave:name is rendered in OSM-carto and considered 
> in Nominatim. And somehow we have to re-tag the old „name" to „cave:name“ in 
> an automated edit - dangerous ground ;)

16477 of natural=cave_entrance + name out there. Redefining the meaning of
name at this point might not be a good idea.
Perhaps leave name alone and add cave:name and cave_entry:name in cases where
clarification is needed?

Btw the page says cave_entrance is "approved". Does anyone have a link to 
the approved proposal.. can't find it?

Regarding "ref", consider this edit: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance=1147798=1134436

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-07 0:15 GMT+02:00 ksg :

> I understand your intention to remove the inconsistent semantics in
> cave:ref vs name. But redefining a name tag that is already widespread used
> (22k objects) is tricky. I would suspect that many cave entrances have no
> specific names, particularly small caves with just one access.



Actually I did not redefine the name tag. Name, according to the wiki, is
"To provide details of the name for a feature included in OpenStreetMap.".
Clearly this refers to the feature that has the tag attached to it, i.e. in
this case the cave entrance. I only repeated this on the cave entrance page
for the avoidance of doubt.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:46:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Il giorno 31 ago 2016, alle ore 12:23, Richard  ha 
> > scritto:
> > 
> > Apparently such ids are already used in OSM 
> > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1049851511).
> 
> 
> yes, this thread is about the name tag
> 
> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that "name" 
> on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?

another thought, it is ok to use natural=cave_entrance + cave:ref + cave:name 
for
caves with one mapped entry but I would consider it ugly to have some 8 
entrances
each duplicating cave:ref and cave:name

Also consider that some caves may have multiple cav:ref type ids assigned, it 
might
be a bit too much to ask renderers to handle all this sanely.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[ksg]

> Am 06.09.2016 um 09:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
> 2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that "name" 
> on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
> 
> 
> Thank you all for your contributions,

Sorry I know I’m late, but was there any positive feedback?

> I have now modified the cave entrance page accordingly to make clear that 
> this is the entrance object, i.e.
> name should be the name of the entrance
> cave:name of the cave it leads to

I understand your intention to remove the inconsistent semantics in cave:ref vs 
name. But redefining a name tag that is already widespread used (22k objects) 
is tricky. I would suspect that many cave entrances have no specific names, 
particularly small caves with just one access. 

So we should propose that cave:name is rendered in OSM-carto and considered in 
Nominatim. And somehow we have to re-tag the old „name" to „cave:name“ in an 
automated edit - dangerous ground ;)
  
> ref should be the ref of the entrance (if any), alternatively ref:=* 
> where org is the issuer/maintainer of the ref
> cave:ref for the ref of the cave it leads to.

OK, fully agreed.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Janko Mihelić]

What about renderers? Should they render name or cave:name? If a small cave
has only one entrance, is it right to name that entrance by the name of the
cave? It's probably going to be used that way.

We should tell Nominatim to start indexing cave:name tags.

Janko

uto, 6. ruj 2016. u 09:47 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> 2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that
>> "name" on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
>>
>
>
> Thank you all for your contributions, I have now modified the cave
> entrance page accordingly to make clear that this is the entrance object,
> i.e.
> name should be the name of the entrance
> cave:name of the cave it leads to
> ref should be the ref of the entrance (if any), alternatively ref:=*
> where org is the issuer/maintainer of the ref
> cave:ref for the ref of the cave it leads to.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance#Tagging
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that
> "name" on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
>


Thank you all for your contributions, I have now modified the cave entrance
page accordingly to make clear that this is the entrance object, i.e.
name should be the name of the entrance
cave:name of the cave it leads to
ref should be the ref of the entrance (if any), alternatively ref:=*
where org is the issuer/maintainer of the ref
cave:ref for the ref of the cave it leads to.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance#Tagging

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 31 ago 2016, alle ore 12:23, Richard  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Apparently such ids are already used in OSM 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1049851511).


yes, this thread is about the name tag

Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that "name" on 
a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:27:00PM +0200, ksg wrote:

> 
> In Austria and the adjacent Bavarian Alps of Germany exist a rather 
> elaborated hierarchical index of caves (Österreichisches Höhlen Verzeichnis 
> (ÖHV) = Austrian Cave Index) - 
> http://hoehle.org/downloads/SD_10_Handbuch.pdf.  The register is based on 
> four main hydrographic units with three level subdivisions, based mainly on 
> river basins and mountain regions. See the english abstract that follows the 
> table of contents. It should be discussed in advance, if the national speleo 
> associations will permit using data from the cave indexes or even if they 
> have an interest in sharing specific information with OSM. 

interesting reading. 

Apparently such ids are already used in OSM 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1049851511).
Don't think such a short numeric id can be copyrighted in any way but of course 
copying data 
from copyrighted sources requires permission and licence compatibility.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[ksg]

> Am 30.08.2016 um 13:39 schrieb Richard :
> 
> So what does cave:ref really mean? Should that say something like 
> "unique cave identifier"?
> Shouldn't cave:ref be subtyped for example as "cave:ref:at" or
> "cave:ref:fr" for austrian resp french ids to prevent id clashes?
> 
> Richard

In Austria and the adjacent Bavarian Alps of Germany exist a rather elaborated 
hierarchical index of caves (Österreichisches Höhlen Verzeichnis (ÖHV) = 
Austrian Cave Index) - http://hoehle.org/downloads/SD_10_Handbuch.pdf.  The 
register is based on four main hydrographic units with three level 
subdivisions, based mainly on river basins and mountain regions. See the 
english abstract that follows the table of contents. It should be discussed in 
advance, if the national speleo associations will permit using data from the 
cave indexes or even if they have an interest in sharing specific information 
with OSM. 

geow
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 30 ago 2016, alle ore 13:39, Richard  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> added that to the description, the docs still need tweaking. 
> German cave_entrance description lacks any mention of "cave:ref". 
> The english says "number in a cave cadastre" which is perhaps 
> a remnant of French translation and not terribly useful as it 
> would imply an official registry which may exist only in few
> countries.


yes, probably the term "cave registry" is more English than cadastre, and yes, 
there are likely several of them, so the tag needs probably tweaking. No 
mention of the term "official" in the wiki, so that's not a requirement (but a 
permissive license of said registries is).

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Alejandro S.]

In Spain there isn't any cave cadastre. Each speleology club give a name
and/or ref to the caves they found in their explaration area. Each club has
its own system to name the new caves. So it could be need to specify also
the club in the ref?
It will be cave:ref:es:CEA=A-111 for a cave explored by the CEA club,
cave:ref:es:ECZ=HU-23 for the caves explored by the ECZ club?

Atentamente,
  Alejandro Suárez

On 30 August 2016 at 13:39, Richard  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:20:19PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> > > Il giorno 29 ago 2016, alle ore 12:24, Richard 
> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > are you saying we should use "cave:ref" just to avoid the use of a
> relation?
> >
> >
> > according to the wiki, that's the standard fag to add to a cave entrance
> for referring to the cave ref
>
> added that to the description, the docs still need tweaking.
> German cave_entrance description lacks any mention of "cave:ref".
> The english says "number in a cave cadastre" which is perhaps
> a remnant of French translation and not terribly useful as it
> would imply an official registry which may exist only in few
> countries.
>
> So what does cave:ref really mean? Should that say something like
> "unique cave identifier"?
> Shouldn't cave:ref be subtyped for example as "cave:ref:at" or
> "cave:ref:fr" for austrian resp french ids to prevent id clashes?
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:20:19PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Il giorno 29 ago 2016, alle ore 12:24, Richard  ha 
> > scritto:
> > 
> > are you saying we should use "cave:ref" just to avoid the use of a relation?
> 
> 
> according to the wiki, that's the standard fag to add to a cave entrance for 
> referring to the cave ref

added that to the description, the docs still need tweaking. 
German cave_entrance description lacks any mention of "cave:ref". 
The english says "number in a cave cadastre" which is perhaps 
a remnant of French translation and not terribly useful as it 
would imply an official registry which may exist only in few
countries.

So what does cave:ref really mean? Should that say something like 
"unique cave identifier"?
Shouldn't cave:ref be subtyped for example as "cave:ref:at" or
"cave:ref:fr" for austrian resp french ids to prevent id clashes?

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 29 ago 2016, alle ore 20:25, Kevin Kenny 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> . I find that I wind up creating multipolygons for my own sanity, even where 
> I could create a compact polygon by tracing adjacent ways. I'm much more 
> comfortable splitting a shared way than I am tracing an adjoining polygon 
> that shares hundreds of nodes, and find the process LESS error-prone, because 
> I'm not going to skip a node inadvertently.
> Don't get me wrong. I'll use a polygon where a polygon will do the job...


+1, I agree completely with what you explain, I'm also working like this when 
mapping landuse, landcovers, natural and leisure areas, and other similar 
areas, I was referring to a special cave relation type, that was proposed to 
represent caves and to map cave entrances to them (i.e. a kind of site relation 
or at least a similar relation type).


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Why? Is there a new trend to avoid relations at all cost?
>
> it's actually an old rule. Relations, being expensive, should be avoided
> where not necessary. They are also less reliable, because you can easily
> add tags for the cave to the entrance without finding the cave object, but
> to add them to a cave relation you will have to find the relation first
>
> > I would be delighted if we could do that with landcover multipolygons..
> and maybe we should?
>
> it's up to you. Landuse and landcover should IMHO be mapped as small as
> reasonable, inner members are usually not necessary when you split stuff
> into small pieces. Those are more lightweight and easier to modify/improve.
> On the other hand there's still use for MPs to avoid overlapping edges:
> every landuse will have a neighboring landuse, in hilly terrain (e.g.)
> those can have a lot of nodes.
>

I'd argue that in the last few years, the relation management in tools such
as JOSM and Meerkartor has improved to the point where "relations are less
reliable" is a rule suitable only for the rawest of beginners or the
simplest of meshes. Perhaps my experience has been different from most,
because I live and recreate in just those hilly areas.

I find, where I've been working, that landcover sometimes, but not always,
follows landuse; and landuse sometimes, but not always, follows cadastre
(boundary=national_park, boundary=protected_area) Moreover, leisure=park
and leisure=nature_reserve and similar things intersect with those in
complex ways. I find that I wind up creating multipolygons for my own
sanity, even where I could create a compact polygon by tracing adjacent
ways. I'm much more comfortable splitting a shared way than I am tracing an
adjoining polygon that shares hundreds of nodes, and find the process LESS
error-prone, because I'm not going to skip a node inadvertently.

Then again, I've just come off a project that involved tidying the topology
of complex administrative boundaries like
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6362702 - so I suspect that my
experience isn't typical. Don't blame me for the resulting mess: I didn't
draft the administrative boundaries. The complex topology is enfolded in
equally complex issues of public policy.

Don't get me wrong. I'll use a polygon where a polygon will do the job (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422887495) - but in the areas where I'm
working, simple topologoes like that are relatively rare. Even where they
exist, more often than not they share line strings with lovely topologies
like the one on the other side of the reservoir:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6364894. Physical features tend to
have that level of complexity (waterways have bays and islands; mountain
ridges run in complex branches, and so on). I tend to assume that cadastre
will be equally complex, land use nearly as complex, and land cover highly
variable (trees and beavers are no respecters of property lines).

This leads to some pretty odd overlapping multipolygons at times:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6385235. If I'm going to preserve the
fact that Crary Mills State Forest is a single administrative unit, all
managed for forestry, with pubic access for recreation (but with varying
actual landcover, since there are marshes, scrub lands, power and
transportation corridors within it), I'm going to wind up with something
that's tricky to edit. It's surely untidy, but that's the world I inhabit.
I map what I find, and I use the features that I think most accurately
represent it.

Incidentally, I have a very strong preference NOT to share ways between
land cover and land use, unless the land cover very obviously follows the
formal boundary (and often not even then). It makes the common case where a
natural feature crosses a property line much easier to deal with if I don't
have to interrupt the natural feature at the administrative boundary.

No doubt I'm doing it all wrong.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 29 ago 2016, alle ore 12:24, Richard  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> are you saying we should use "cave:ref" just to avoid the use of a relation?


according to the wiki, that's the standard fag to add to a cave entrance for 
referring to the cave ref



> Why? Is there a new trend to avoid relations at all cost?


it's actually an old rule. Relations, being expensive, should be avoided where 
not necessary. They are also less reliable, because you can easily add tags for 
the cave to the entrance without finding the cave object, but to add them to a 
cave relation you will have to find the relation first 



> I would be delighted
> if we could do that with landcover multipolygons.. and maybe we should?


it's up to you. Landuse and landcover should IMHO be mapped as small as 
reasonable, inner members are usually not necessary when you split stuff into 
small pieces. Those are more lightweight and easier to modify/improve. On the 
other hand there's still use for MPs to avoid overlapping edges: every landuse 
will have a neighboring landuse, in hilly terrain (e.g.) those can have a lot 
of nodes. 

cheers,

Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 04:56:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-08-28 15:23 GMT+02:00 Richard :
> 
> > As the cave may have other cave-wide attributes there may be other reasons
> > to have a relation for it.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> no, you just need an object for the cave, and with natural=cave you will
> have this object (could be a node or a way, clearly a way is nicer because
> of shape, extent, etc.).


are you saying we should use "cave:ref" just to avoid the use of a relation?
Why? Is there a new trend to avoid relations at all cost? I would be delighted
if we could do that with landcover multipolygons.. and maybe we should?

Btw nodes of type natural=cave is kapu because the database has too many entries
such entries which are erroneous (following the ancient rejected proposal) for
what should be natural=cave_entry.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-08-28 15:23 GMT+02:00 Richard :

> As the cave may have other cave-wide attributes there may be other reasons
> to have a relation for it.
>



no, you just need an object for the cave, and with natural=cave you will
have this object (could be a node or a way, clearly a way is nicer because
of shape, extent, etc.).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 02:32:53PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Il giorno 28 ago 2016, alle ore 13:31, Richard  ha 
> > scritto:
> > 
> > So if you have several cave entrances belonging to a cave you could have
> > a relation specifying the name of the cave and entrances with own names.
> 
> 
> isn't the relation only needed until you have the cave connected to all 
> mapped entrances?

strictly taken, yes. It is also assumed that this will be a rather frequent 
situation, you have many cave systems where it is known that certain cave 
entrances or other objects belong to a cave system but not exactly how they 
are connected.
Even long after it is known to researchers there may not be anyone in the OSM
community abler or willing to map them in detail.

As the cave may have other cave-wide attributes there may be other reasons
to have a relation for it.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 28 ago 2016, alle ore 13:31, Richard  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> So if you have several cave entrances belonging to a cave you could have
> a relation specifying the name of the cave and entrances with own names.


isn't the relation only needed until you have the cave connected to all mapped 
entrances?

With cave:name on the entrances there would already be an implicit (semantic) 
relation with the cave, even if the cave isn't yet mapped to the entrance.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Richard]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 03:59:11PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> It seems not very consistent that the wiki suggests the tag "cave:ref" for
> the ref of the cave but "name" for the name of the cave.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance
> 
> I would suggest "cave:name" for the name of the cave.

Btw, I am also working on 
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Dcave
which would
 * allow mapping the inside of caves
 * introduce relation type=cave to group together attributes and elements
   of caves

So if you have several cave entrances belonging to a cave you could have
a relation specifying the name of the cave and entrances with own names.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging