Proposal talk:Snowshed

Perhaps we could use the definition from canvec?

"Roofed structure built over a railway in mountainous areas to protect railway from snow slides." --acrosscanadatrails 15:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage of tunnel or covered tag?

I see this as a different type of tunnel. Couldn't Key:tunnel be used? The tunnel page could be written to also cover snowsheds. Opinions? --Kslotte 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A perfect fit for the recently heavily discussed Proposed_features/covered. Alv 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Key:covered is better. --Kslotte 15:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Key:covered=snowshed makes more sense. --DiverCTH 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can this proposal be treated as redundant? --Kslotte 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out under Key:covered these structures are not tunnels, as they are often, if not always, open on one side of the way, whereas tunnels are completely closed. Key:covered certainly "covers" the fact that the road is covered. In fact the first example link under Key:covered is a snowshed (without snow). Snowshed is more specific, but possibly too specific. An identical structure is sometimes used in warmer climates to protect roads/traffic from falling rock. This would seem to require still a third tag if it was considered an important distinct feature. So, I would have to state that I believe the tag is, if not redundant, then too specific. (Disclaimer: I'm the author of Key:covered ) --turbodog 06:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not as an attribute on the highway/railway

I agree that snowsheds are covered by covered=* but there is other means of avalanche protection like this one: Avalanche control which could be mapped and tagged separately. -- Dieterdreist 02:56, 6 March 2010

I think those could be mapped as barrier=fence. --Kslotte 12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)