<div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>+1</div><div>I would even go for highway=fairway to route over an area, instead of the currently used invisible highway=path.</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Vr gr Peter Elderson</div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op di 12 feb. 2019 om 13:49 schreef Dave Swarthout <<a href="mailto:daveswarthout@gmail.com">daveswarthout@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note should be removed.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not, however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys."</div><div><br></div><div>Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated for use on such routes anyway. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Dave<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Fernando Trebien <<a href="mailto:fernando.trebien@gmail.com" target="_blank">fernando.trebien@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Sorry to bring this back so much time later. I just want to confirm a detail.<br>
<br>
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM Multi Modaal <<a href="mailto:multimodaal@gmail.com" target="_blank">multimodaal@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > I could go along with the extension of the definition of waterway=canal to<br>
> > cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this solution<br>
> > is accepted as a result of voting process on a formal proposal. Personally<br>
> > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.<br>
> I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be better, but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data users I see no advantage in banning current practice which is also in concordance with the wiki for instance waterway=fairway (fairway on a lake is added as an addition to waterway=canal/river )<br>
<br>
Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is<br>
"questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this<br>
is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be<br>
used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed<br>
ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a<br>
navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement<br>
for routing).<br>
<br>
If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Fernando Trebien<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_3189670646061361047gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Dave Swarthout<br>Homer, Alaska<br>Chiang Mai, Thailand<br>Travel Blog at <a href="http://dswarthout.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://dswarthout.blogspot.com</a></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>