ajt1047 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 24 22:35:27 UTC 2015
On 23/08/2015 16:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> To people using this tag: please, update and clarify documentation of
> this tag on OSM wiki. For example it is even unclear whatever it should
> be expected that it can be applied to canals no longer filled with
> "used for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation" so filled by water
> seems intended as implied - but canal that is drained and converted
> into cycleway also fits "transportation".
I think that that part of the wiki's fairly clear - you've selectively
quoted the second half of a sentence there, the part that means
"canal". The tricky bit is what "derelict" means...
> On the other hand name (at least for me) implies canal where earthwork
> is present but is no longer filled with water.
Let's assume to start with that we're talking about things that are
still a feature of the landscape (and leave the "what if they're not"
discussion to the various "railway" threads). I've tended to use it on
those bits of canal that can't be used for their former purpose, so
(to which I added "description=Water in places, but some trees growing
in it - disused") through to:
("note=Here the footpath seems to be along the old elevated canal bed")
To my mind a waterway=derelict_canal is not just a waterway=canal that
happens to be disused - it's one where the infrastructure has
deteriorated significantly. So for example, this section of Cromford Canal:
is largely disused as a canal (although the charity that's restoring it
does run trips up and down the top end), but it still has water in it,
and still looks to the casual observer like a canal, so I mapped it as such.
FWIW I agree completely with Chris about the problems with "foo=bar +
disused=yes". It's a form of tagging that's really best avoided. As an
aside, when I tried to represent "dead pubs" on a map I ended up doing this:
That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not disused=yes"
into every cartocss rule!
More information about the Tagging