Talk:Proposed features/building passage

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Resolved: --Flaimo 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this. --chris66 11:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been waiting for this. There are 12km of arcades ("portici") to be added to the database in Padova, Italy --voschix 13:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

tunnel vs. covered

Resolved: Splitt arcde and colonnade values; changed key to covered --Flaimo 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, a tunnel should have an entry point on each end, where it is connected to another way. This is not necessarily true for aracades and colonnades. Instead, the may have multiple entry points to the side. Therefore, the tunnel=* key seems counter-intuitive for this. Maybe covered=arcade/colonnade would be better.

A road gallery is open to the side, but resembles a tunnel in other respects.

The difference between tunnel=* and covered=* should be clearly defined. 3 criterias come to mind:

  1. how they are connected to other ways
  2. whether the object is open to the side
  3. the gauge or depth of the cover

I would certainly tend towards (2). --Fkv 14:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

complete agree with Fkv, don't use tunnel=* but use covered=* instead. This is already in use btw. There also seems some typologic confusion about the term arcade. An arcade has the requirement of several arches (see ). The example "Kanslihusets arkad" is not an arcade. This is a covered colonnade (see ). The name "Kanslihusets arkad" was probably chosen by the developer for advertizing reasons (sounds better for certain clients). I'd expect the distinction of arcades and colonnades from a dedicated proposal. -- Dieterdreist 17:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
i changed the key from tunnel to covered. concerning arcade vs. colonnade: which one should be used now? i don't see a sense to use both since most people won't be able to differentiate between these variations anyway. the forum thread shows that most people would call this type of constructions arcade. so i suggest to stick with building_arcade. if you know the exact construction type, i suggest to use building_arcade:left/right=colonnade for further refinement --Flaimo 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
arcade vs colonnade: I think they should both be used. The distinction is very simple and everyone can distinguish it: arcades do have arcs, they are "round" (are vaults), while colonnades do have columns and no vault (they are flat at their ceiling). Calling a colonnade an arcade would be plain wrong, so I don't think we should not distinguish between those two. (Flaimo, if you want faster answers, please contact me with the mapping contact system, user dieterdreist) --Dieterdreist 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
for colonnades: what might be too much for the average mapper is the distinction of several subtypes like portico, peristyle and so on (could be subtyped, if someone is interested).--Dieterdreist 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

why building_arcade and building_colonnade?

Resolved: dropped building_ prefix for arcade/colonnade --Flaimo 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not use building_arcade and building_colonnade but instead arcade and colonnade. What is the sense of the "building_"-prefix here? --Dieterdreist 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

value at the end

Resolved: no change --Flaimo 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

gallery:left=open -> I think it's better to write the "changing value" at the end like this: gallery:open=left -- MasiMaster 15:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

it is based on current notations like for example cycleway:left=*. This leaves us with the option to later use more precise values instead of "open", that better describe the architecture of the construction. --Flaimo 20:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

covered vs. indoor

Resolved: Removed the argument of indoor mapping --Flaimo 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal says:

The next best this is covered=yes, which doesn't provide enough information for renderers to differentiate between indoor ways and passages through a building.

This needs further explanation. After all, there is indoor=yes for indoor ways. It's not documented in the wiki, but it is widely used [1]. --Head 15:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

i didn't know that, and nobody brought that up on the forum either. also, according to taginfo, it has been used about 6000 times, which i would say isn't much regarding the fact that it affects a mayor tag (highway=footway/path). i will remove that part from the proposal, but i still conciser covered=yes to generic. especially 3D maps need a more precise description of ways and constructions for accurate rendering. --Flaimo 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Gallery or avalanche shelter

Resolved: gallery changed to avalanche_protector --Flaimo 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these structures are usually referred to as a "gallery" in English, they are usually just known as an "avalanche shelter". Even if they are designed to protect against landslides, they are still called an avalanche shelter. Most people would not know what tunnel=gallery means. I would suggest the tag tunnel=avalanche_shelter instead. --Vclaw 17:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

it was hard to come up with the correct terms and it wasn't clear from the forum thread either how to call the new values. the suggested value is based on the corresponding wikipedia article but it seems like the industry calls it avalanche protectors, so i will change it to that --Flaimo 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Other keywords to use with this

I like this.

I think it would be useful for the description to suggest use of "height" and "width" keywords, to describe the dimensions of the passage, as this may be useful for journey planning (for vehicular use). Come to think of it, it would be good to indicate access restrictions in the same way as for rights of way generally, to make it clear which passageways are for vehicular use.

There's a possible ambiguity in specifying "width", as to whether it's the width of the passageway (the hole in the building) or the width of the right-of-way through it (the road / path surface) but I suspect that's rarely important.

Also, the entrance to a passage may be multiple arches --- there's a triple-arched one here:

As path: As part of a building:

Two of its arches are visible in (one each side of the 5mph sign).

How should we map something like this?

-- HillWithSmallFields 17:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

physical dimensions of constructions can be mapped with width=* and height=* already. same goes for legal restrictions (maxwidth=* and (maxheight=*). they are well established, so i don't see a reason to write them in the proposal. since the tunnel=* key is a side tag for the main highway=* or railway=* key, access restrictions are covered too and don't need to be explicitly put in the proposal either.
concerning the connection of other ways with arcades/colonnades, i think it is not possible to cover the endless possibilities, since it always depends on the construction. Also people connect such ways already right now regardless of the fact whether they mapped the colonnades with covered=yes, tunnel=colonnades or any other value. --Flaimo 21:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


In my opinion a tunnel is a completely closed, tubular object, independent of it's length. Where covered is a not not completely closed, tubular object. So tunnel=avalanche_protector should be renamed to covered=avalanche_protector. --Fabi2 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

such constructs don't necessarily need to have an open side, as shown in the third picture on this page: . --Flaimo 22:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
But wehere is then the difference to tunnel=yes? --Fabi2 23:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
in both cases tunnel=* defines, that the way has a defined entry and exit point. the value, just gives a hint about the structure (just like building=yes vs. building=garage for example) --Flaimo 11:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Every way in OSM have a defined entry point, where it starts and an defined exit point, where it ends. Your mentioned "hint" about the structure is what really makes a tunnel different. In the third picture behind the above link, the part of the avalanche protector is in fact an tunnel, so it should be tagged with tunnel=yes. When there is another part of the same avalanche protector, witch is open to one side, then it should be tagged covered=avalanche_protector. --Fabi2 13:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
since avalanche protectors, which are closed to both side and on the top (like in the picture mentioned), can have openings at the top for air to get out, tunnel=yes wouldn't fit either. besides that, it is just too generic and one thing this proposal tries to achieve is to semantically differentiate certain type of "tunnels".
i think that covered=* should only be used, if you can physically leave the path at any time to at least one side (see discussions above for the arcade value). since you can't do that when inside an avalanche protector, i think, that the tunnel key is a better fit. most people aren't architects and don't know the difference between a "real" tunnel and an avalanche_protector anyway. to them it is just a tunnel.
using both, tunnel and covered, would just overcomplicate things for the average user without any additional benefit that couldn't otherwise be described with the subkey {key|avalanche_protector}} in a more modular way.--Flaimo 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If you can leave the avalanche protector, can be easily seen by adding just another way to the side of the way tagged with covered=avalanche_protector, otherwise you can't leave the way physically. So this makes no difference, as you also usually can not leave an amenity=fuel, beside from the ends of the driveway through it, and which I would and was tagged with covered=yes.
This makes the things also not more complicated, as a tunnel always is a closed tubular way, if it's partial open to one side, the object is covered. You will then tag the open part with covered=avalanche_protector and the closed with tunnel=yes, as the is no difference to a tunnel for this part. --Fabi2 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)