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.
Janko 2014-08-14 7:29 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com>: > I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how > these may be mapped ("tunnels that are available for humans but closed for > typical > tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private, > and routes available for tourists as highway=footway (highway=steps) with > tunnel=yes"). > > I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that "At the moment > there just a > tag to map the entrance to a cave." despite fact that existing tags fit > well. > > I am pretty sure that it is a good idea, but maybe there is some superior > scheme or > I missed something. > > Example of cave tagged this way is available at > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.17416&mlon=19.80670#map=18/50.17416/19.80670 > > I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of > cave, > maybe natural=cave_tunnel? > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging