2014-08-14 12:24 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <a.pir...@ulg.ac.be>: > > 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. > > Janko > > Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for > tourism, I wonder... >
Ok, I exaggerated with the word obviously. But tunnels are used a lot in OSM and they have gotten a very clear semantic meaning: a man made opening in the ground. There's no reason to add caves to that definition. The reason "renderers don't render it" is invalid because of one of the oldest rules in OSM: don't tag for the renderer. And if a data consumer tries to find the length of all footpaths in tunnels in Poland, she will ask "find all highway=footpath + tunnel=yes", and she will find all tunnels plus all caves. And that isn't right. I suggest starting the cave=yes tag, and we'll see, maybe the renderers will pick it up. They only have to treat it the same as tunnel=yes. Janko
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
