On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : > 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : >> Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace >> this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with >> this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that >> they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. > Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted > up for tourism, I wonder... > > > Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my > opinion, a "tunnel" is man-made, while a "cave" is not.
"tunnel" is an attribute of an object called "highway", including the paths in question. "cave:NNN=*" are attributes of objects "natural <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=cave_entrance" <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance>, obviously speleology and not path oriented. "cave=*" is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using "cave=yes" for paths would first need a definition of it in the "highway=*" page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? André.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
