Neither Potlatch2, nor Mapnik render tunnel=culvert as expected. What's the point? -- 17:31, May 10, 2011 User:Ponzu
- It's more descriptive than tunnel=yes, and captures a distinction people make in real life. The point of tagging is to capture those distinctions. I'm not particularly bothered about how it renders, but since you have expectations about that please consider raising a pair of tickets at https://trac.openstreetmap.org/newticket explaining what your expectations for rendering or editing are. Thanks! --achadwick 13:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Culvert vs. tunnel=yes
What is the advantage of tagging tunnel=culvert over tunnel=yes? If a stream goes into a pipe for a while, what else is going to be if not a culvert of sorts? -- 17:31, May 10, 2011 User:Ponzu
- Greater descriptive power, and data consumers not having to draw the inference you mention. We don't just use road=yes or building=yes for example. I'd argue there are useful distinctions to be drawn too between "tunnels" and "culverts": assumed bore diameter, methods of construction, visibility in the landscape, relative position to transport infrastructure and relation to it, and rather importantly for human users of the map, what people call it and what it might look like on the ground. --achadwick 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Removed advice to tag foot=yes if high enough for walkers
Removed the sentence
because the advice is simply incorrect. foot=yes is a direct statement that there is an official, legally-enshrined (and verifiable) right of way; see Key:access. Do not use foot=yes to indicate that a culvert is high enough to allow pedestrians to walk through it.
We ought to have a way of encoding the height of a tunnel, but this is not the right way to do it. It should probably be covered more generally in Key:tunnel.
--achadwick 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"Tagging controversy" section
This section seems wholly uncontroversial now, with 43800 ways in the database comprising very nearly 10% of all ways tagged tunnel=*. I've moved it here since it's really historical discussion and the mailing list links and usage counts are worth keeping.
tunnel=culvert is how some people want you to tag culverts. Before this wiki page was created the tagging of culverts was converging towards culvert=yes. Which was documented a few days before the creation of this page because that tag was actually in use.
Tagging statistics of the 19th of jan 2012:
- man_made=culvert: 1 uses (
at least one).
- waterway=culvert: 107 uses.
- tunnel=culvert: 18611 uses.
- culvert=yes: 2239 uses.
- and many tunnel=yes for culverts before this proposal
For the whole discussion: 
Hope that isn't treading on anyone's toes; just cleaning up for the sake of presenting a concise, descriptive article for the tag. --achadwick 14:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. At least we didn't get a tag with colon in it for this. --Cartinus (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup remaining culvert=yes occurences ?
Recently stumbled upon some older waterways that were tagged "culvert=yes,layer=-1". Wondering if it would be a good idea to have them converted automatically to tunnel=culvert now? RicoZ (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Get rid of "bridge=culvert" advice?
The page contains the sentence "In some countries, the culvert structure is directly reused as a bridge in which case prefer the tag bridge=culvert". However that was never approved afaics and appears rather confusing. Where should be bridge=culvert applied to - the upper, the lower or both ways? Description suggests both ways should be tagged as bridge=culvert and because they are a single structure they should also share a node or ways.
- I came to the conclusion that this is more like a bridge than a culvert. That do you think? Description should be clarified, of course.--Jojo4u (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hoping that someone who added or endorses this bit of description will voice his/her opinion and clarify, otherwise I would plainly remove it. There is also bridge=simple_brunnel which is in an early draft stage and might serve a similar purpose (as far as I can guess the original purpose of bridge=culvert).
- Sorry, don't see the contradiction right now, I thought that bridge=culvert has been more or less discouraged. Where do you see contradicting information? RicoZ (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
DONE : the wiki pages have been changed quite some time ago and it was most likely a mapping accident.
If you encounter "fresh" occurrences of bridge=culvert try to clarify and correct the issue with the respective mapper. Editors/QA tools should generate warnings if someone tries to create them accidentally. RicoZ (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)