Here are some examples of this, just to clarify. I don't see how these could possibly be mapped as nodes, so I really don't understand what the debate was in the first place:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/26.53270/-81.75712 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/26.53696/-81.77442 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/26.59305/-81.86069 On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I want to thank all of you for the input. I think > it is common sense (now) that tunnel=culvert > should be used on ways only, so I'd be happy to see > the wiki pages changed so that they don't suggest > to use the tag on a node. > Who can do that? > > Gerd > > ________________________________________ > Von: Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 14:39 > An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > I don't think that this is a strong point. > > Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the > > length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place > > the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing > > node that looks good enough I use that. > > On the other hand, I think we make > > assumptions about the width of the road based on its > > type (primary, secondary ,etc), > > so this assumption would also apply on the culvert. > > So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate > this fault to all attached objects? > > We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not > increase them. > > Flo > -- > Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de > We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today! > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
