2014-08-14 11:40 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com>: > 2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald <imagic....@gmail.com>: > >> 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> 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. > > > Neither OSM wiki nor Wikipedia restricts it this way. There is even section > about natural tunnels - see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Natural_tunnels (though caves are not > mentioned there). > > Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible, worse than for > example using highway as tag also for private roads.
As a native speaker I may as well chip in, and say I have no problem at all with "tunnel" referring to a natural tunnel as part of a cave system. > But I see absolutely no benefit from a completely separate tagging (that > nobody would support). Well, no-one ever supports "new" tagging, the question is if it's needed. But I agree, I can't see a benefit keeping it separate. Dan _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
