Anthony wrote: >From: Anthony <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Feature: "covered=yes" - Added to Map FeaturesProperties >Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:39:09 -0500 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Lines: 15 > >On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Pieren ><[email protected]> wrote: >>I think you have to move this on a >>Proposal page first as many did in the past and provide a better >>description explaining where are the limits of its usage (when it is a >>tunnel and when not). (for instance, the definition about tunnel being >>only underground is not correct). > >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel already explains when >something is a tunnel and when it is not. It says "The tunnel tag is >used to map ways that runs through an underground passage." > >If someone wants to change this definition (which is neither correct >nor incorrect), wouldn't they need to be the one to make the proposal? > >Anthony
I appreciate the proposal page, and will update it with my thoughts. However, I agree with Anthony. The "covered" proposal is not the place to discuss what is and is not a tunnel. The tunnel page is the place for that. There is apparently quite a bit of disagreement about what is and is not a tunnel, and that may be addressed elsewhere. Whatever a tunnel is, the covered property is unnecessary for a tunnel, because tunnel implies a cover. -- Randy _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
