<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana;">This proposal also
doesn't seem to address specifically how we should tag
ports in sweat water bodies, large lakes have large boats
both for cargo and as ferries. However this proposal only
seems to target "sea" ports.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
indeed it is covering infrastructure for ocean going vessels,
leaving out those places that are used only by inland water
traffic (assuming they were already covered in waterway, or could
be added there if still missing). When facilities are serving
both, the new key guarantees that both kind of tags can be applied</blockquote>
Let's make a step back then what the scope should be. I think, up
to today the existing harbour=* and seamark keys are used for both
sea or ocean and inland facilities. Because of that fact they have
the same gaps and shortcomings, which we should improve. In my
opinion they use or provide similar or exactly identical facilities.
Trying to reduce the scope to only ocean and sea facilities will
create a huge grey zone. Creates ambiguity, where in the real world
this ambiguity does not exist. You motivate and compare often with
highway and raiilway, even air transport. But in none of these
there was a need identified to split between international or more
localised facilities (all water bodies, inland, sea, oceans are just
parts of the waterway ecosystem). So I don't get it Martin, what
should be a fundamental argument to make a split in this case.<br>
<p>That brings us back of course to why we should use a new seaway
key instead of extending and tagging these facilities under
waterway.</p>
<p>Greetings,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>