PS: And the current tagging is much more misleading because it makes it look like the canal is not covered (and that is also how the renderers will render it, but even interpreting the tags manually will give this false impression).

Neither tunnel=culvert nor tunnel=flooded implies that you can walk through the object, that is your major misunderstanding. I would say that "flooded" even pretty much implies that you can NOT walk through the object because it is flooded with water. But even with "culvert", that follows from the tagging as a waterway.

The water surely enters somewhere and exits somewhere, but nothing in the tunnel tag implies that those entrances are usable by humans.

People doing dangerous things due to OSM tagging is an issue we have in the mountains with "footways" that are really alpine climbing paths. I have never heard of it ever having been an issue with tunneled water canals, at least here in Austria.

@SomeoneElse: I hope you can see from the above discussion that it is impossible to reason with fkv and that the only thing that will work is sanctions.

And water necessarily enters somewhere and exits somewhere else, whether you can see the entrance/exit or not. That is just basic physics.

The community voting you mention was overturned by a more recent voting in the forum.

> Apart from that, I can only repeat my request to all quarrelers to go there and see what it looks like before you steal my time.

Why should I waste my time going there? Seeing the object is not going to change my opinion that this needs a tunnel=* tag.

The issue is not that we do not know what this object looks like, but that we fundamentally disagree with your narrow view of what deserves a tunnel=* tag.

And layer=* by itself is not sufficient to describe something as being underground or a tunnel. It only describes its altitude relative to the other layers (and even there, only the ordering and not the precise altitude). It is a hint to 2D renderers in which order to draw things and allows 3D or multilayer renderers to separate the layers. It is also a hint to routers because it implies a turn restriction on roads crossing at different layers (as cars and bicycles cannot jump up or down). But it says nothing about whether the layer=-1 object is a tunnel, an open ditch, or just located in a dell.

Since this is around 600m long, you can argue that it should be tunnel=flooded ("an artificial structure intended to channel water on a significant distance" "(over 100 meters)" – see tunnel=flooded ) rather than tunnel=culvert, and I would be fine with that too, but what is clear is that this needs SOME tunnel=* tag because it runs underground.

Replying to your 4 paragraphs one by one:

1. If a DWG member tells you that something is a "golden rule", you should accept the friendly advice instead of trying to argue over it. The DWG are the ones who will ultimately have to make the call whether your edits are constructive or not, so you ought to listen to them.

2. SomeoneElse's point was that you should open a new thread in the forum if you want to continue arguing, instead of doing it here. Exactly so that you get feedback from more community members. That said, the forum is not the only place where community discussion happens. Your changes were discussed on #osm-at IRC/Matrix, which is why several people found them. We were not personally contacted by Negreheb or anybody else, that is what IRC/Matrix is for. And the channel that was used is an official discussion venue for OSM in Austria.

3. We are not Negreheb's or whoever's "friends" (see above), but community members from #osm-at IRC/Matrix. And the facts are that this underground rainwater canal (I would not call it a "sewer" since it does not go into the sewage system, but directly into the Liesing brook) is underground and as such needs a tag that specifies that.

4. What a "tunnel" is for you, or even for cave explorers in general, is not relevant here. For OSM, what matters is the definition of the tunnel=culvert OSM tag: tunnel=culvert which states it is "a device used to channel water" and "for a stream/drain/ditch passing under a road". In other words, this tag is intended exactly for the kind of artificial underground canal we have here, according to your own description. Hence, it is not constructive to repeatedly delete this accurate tag.

Echt jetzt? Ein *vierter* Revert hintereinander, trotz ausdrücklicher Warnung? Musste das sein?

Die DWG ist bereits informiert.

Das ist schon dein dritter aufeinanderfolgender Revert in ein- und derselben Angelegenheit (und zwar hast du bereits die Commits 3er verschiedener User revertet). Du wurdest in der Diskussion 3:1 überstimmt, das hast du zu akzeptieren, auch wenn du es persönlich noch so falsch findest. Wenn du hier noch einen Revert machst, sehe ich keine andere Wahl, als die DWG einzuschalten und eine Sperre zu beantragen.

Der tunnel-Tag wurde ursprünglich nicht von fkv eingetragen, sondern von Johannes M.

(Damit ist das hier auch fkvs erster Revert in der Angelegenheit, und sein Revert meines Reverts bereits der zweite aufeinanderfolgende.)

Siehe die Diskussion unter deinem ursprünglichen Changset: changeset/137316849

Ein Revert-War ist KEIN konstruktiver Beitrag. Mehrere Community-Mitglieder betrachten deine Tag-Entfernung als unbegründet und destruktiv.

Siehe changeset/137368001 für die von fkv angezettelte Revert-War.

> Ich finde es übrigens bemerkenswert, wie viele Leute sich hier wichtig machen und den Kanal umtaggen, aber selber gemappt hat von euch noch keiner einen Kanal, dazu seid ihr zu faul!

Um zu erkennen, daß ein unterirdisch verlaufender Bach einen Tag braucht, der ebendies beschreibt, muß ich nicht dort gewesen sein.

> aber im engeren und Wiki-Sinn steht es wie im Deutschen für ein mehr oder weniger geradliniges Objekt

Das ist völliger Unsinn: Nirgends auf:

* tunnel=culvert
* osm.wiki/DE:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert
* osm.wiki/DE:Key:tunnel
* tunnel=*

ist von "geradlinig" die Rede. Auch z.B. Eisenbahntunnel sind oft alles andere als gerade, siehe z.B. den in Bau befindlichen Semmering-Basistunnel. Zudem ist für OSM ausschließlich die englischsprachige Definition relevant.

Zudem fehlt mit deiner "Korrektur" die Information, daß der Bach in diesem Bereich unterirdisch verläuft, komplett, weil du keine Alternative für den nach deiner Privatmeinung "falschen" tunnel-Tag vorzuschlagen hast. Damit hast du Information gelöscht = Vandalismus.

Ein Revert-War:
changeset/137367465
ist jedenfalls KEIN konstruktiver Beitrag.

Generell würde ich mir auch wünschen, daß du nicht so schnell Tagging-Schemen als "falsch" bezeichnest und sofort umtaggst, nur weil sie dir nicht gefallen.

Ich stimme Negreheb zu und habe daher diese Änderung rückgängig gemacht (reverted):
changeset/137367465

amenity=* is NOT a replacement for building=yes. Please NEVER remove building=* tags from buildings, that makes them vanish from the rendering.

I have reverted your change: changeset/130968848

Richtergasse/Andlergasse habe ich jetzt auch ausgebessert, da ist mir gerade eingefallen, daß mir da die fehlenden grünen bzw. blauen Pfeile schon einmal negativ aufgefallen sind.