Proposal:Covered

covered
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	Turbodog
Applies to:	node way area
Definition:	denote that a node, way or area is covered
Rendered as:	Various, see rendering text
Draft started:
Proposed on:	2009-11-03
RFC start:	2009-11-04
Vote start:	2009-12-05
Vote end:	2009-12-19

Description

Used to denote that an object represented by a node, way or area is covered, where layering is inappropriate.

Rationale

While layering is the current accepted means of showing that one object is covered by another, layering, by definition is to denote separate physical levels. There are numerous situations where layering is inappropriate, and can be misleading in the context of the subsystem being mapped. A tag of "covered" on the entity can not only address this issue, but will also make routing more efficient in cases where, for example a route to avoid the natural elements is desired, or a route to covered parking or to an area for sheltered entry or egress into a vehicle is desired.

Usage

covered=yes

To be used to

A. denote that a highway, railway, pedestrian way or waterway passes under a building or other structure, where it is inappropriate to use layering as the differentiator between covered and uncovered. or where "covered" will more clearly define the condition.

B. denote that a power line, water main, etc., or a water drain, in a narrow trench, has a removable and replaceable covering, allowing for maintenance, and thus potentially allowing it to be traversed without a bridge.

C. denote an area such as an underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such things as an aquarium (e.g., Kelly Tarlton's, Auckland, NZ), when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer differentiation.

When NOT to use:

- as a tunnel feature, since "covered=yes" is implied for tunnels.
- on a highway passing under a bridge, where the path of the under-passing highway may be accurately assumed.
- for entities that are buried in the earth or submerged in water.

Can be used along with layering in cases where it would assist in completely describing the relationship.

Examples

• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Galeriestra%C3%9Fe_cropped.jpg&filetimestamp=20080413091504
• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Br%C3%BCckengasthaus_Frankenwald.jpg&filetimestamp=20070724173037
• http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG
• http://www.bahnfotokiste.de/s_bahn/blankenese/blankenese_6.html
• http://images.loopnet.com/xnet/mainsite/attachments/viewImage.aspx?FileGuid=C138EA3D-33CE-4695-AA32-11C4C9C097EA&Extension=jpg&Width=631&Height=421
• http://www.fffw.org/Randy/Photos/covered_storm_drain.jpg Covered storm drain - Matsusaka, Japan

Additional Attributes

maxheight=* may also be associated with the covered way or area to indicate clearance.

Rendering

Rendering would depend on the object being covered, but would, in general, "diminish" the uncovered rendering.

Rendering suggestions include

- parallel dashed lines with no color fill to denote a covered highway.
- a lighter or different color to denote a covered pedestrian way.
- a dashed line to indicate a covered waterway (blue) or power line (black).

The suggestion has been made to render the covering object (in the renderer's drawing sequence) as semitransparent. This would work for most highways, but I'm not sure it would be visually distinct for narrow solid lines.

Deprecates

This tag potentially deprecates the following tags:

• man_made=reservoir_covered by man_made=reservoir + covered=yes
• missuse of tunnel=yes
• Questionable use of layering
• ?

Comments

Please leave comments on the discussion page or on tagging@ (preferred).

Voting

• I approve this proposal.--turbodog 08:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I don't like this proposal. because it's a synonym of tunnel=yes when it's not exactly a tunnel but OSM is "approximations". And it will create confusion to many contributors. Btw, you could add the tag maxheight=* (for highways) in the additionnal attributes section . --Pieren 11:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal.--orienteerer 14:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Renaud 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Nighto 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., but I don't like usage A. To my mind, there is a big difference between "this thing has a purpose-built structure protecting it from the elements" and "there is something else between this thing and the sky". But hey. Stevage 13:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--walley 16:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Dieterdreist 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --fradeve11 14:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --florianheer 15:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Vrabcak 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--grossing 17:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., as of now I see covered walkways tagged with "building=yes", which doesn't really cut it.--Ipofanes 19:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Gnuzifer 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Layer=-1 already has the same meaning --MarcusWolschon 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Giardia 13:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Covered is not sufficcient, we need levels. --Lulu-Ann 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting ended 19 December Final Tally: Total votes = 16 (+ 1 poll), For = 13, Opposed = 3 (+ 1 poll). Proposal passed. --turbodog 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)