The bridge and tunnel relations seem to be in widespread use, despite it being a 'proposal', so don't worry about using it.
As to breaking the ways - you don't need to worry about that from a routing perspective, as most of the train routes use relations [1] anyway. As to the question of what the actual name tag of the way should be, I think I'd err towards name=Box Tunnel, as that's the more specific name for that actual stretch of track. I've done the same with viaducts and bridges. "Great Western Main Line" could be considered a 'railway route' [2], and could thus eventually be a relation of its own. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtrain [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=railway Frankie 2009/9/20 d f <[email protected]> > Hi > > The famous Box Tunnel on the GWR Paddington to Bristol line had been name > tagged as name= Box Tunnel. > > http://osm.org/go/euksKneA > > Am I right in thinking that would break the ways for routing purposes? > > GWR->GWR->Box Tunnel->GWR etc... > > I changed it to tunnel_name= Box Tunnel, but I'm not sure if this is > correct. > > I saw there's a proposal for using relations: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels > > but like many proposals it seems to be going for over 18 months with no > resolution. > > If this is the way to go about it, are then any examples I could view? > > Thanks > Dave F. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-transit mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
