[Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu Jul 19 07:30:47 UTC 2018


In case of waterway=fish_pass I think that a new waterway is OK as
- it is drastically different from other defined waterways- is not a navigable waterway
- is not redefining already mapped objects

17. Lipiec 2018 23:04 od fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com <mailto:fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>:


> Hi all,
> A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here :> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass>
> While writing > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies>>  it was asked to not clutter waterway=* with spillway since it was a specific usage of a man made canal.> Such ideas lead to separate waterway nature, usage and sometimes supporting infrastructure to get a tagging model with 3 different corresponding keys.> A comprehensive table of waterways natures has been set here : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values>
>
> May it be great to consider usage=fish_pass with waterway=* (canal, presumably) for sake of consistency?
> Feel free to read and comment on the Talk page
> All the best
> Fran├žois
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180719/9d39f87d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list