[Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jul 19 08:15:09 UTC 2018
The 'fish passes' I am familiar with are all man made, they provide fish
a way around weirs, dams and locks.
They certainly are not intended for human transportation and should not
provide a lot of water flow.
They are different from spillways, canals and other man made waterways,
they are not a sub class to them.
If they are not to be considered part of the waterway key then possibly
they can be added to the key man_made.
On 19/07/18 17:57, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote:
> I personally prefer a few main values in the waterway to define the
> general cases and subtags for specific cases like this, of the type of
> usage = fiss_pass. If I am in front of an infrastructure of this type,
> its physical characteristics will allow me to distinguish if it is a
> channel, ditch or brook. If it was built for the purpose of fish
> passing it is a separate issue. Are a fish_pass different in nature to
> any other waterway? Waterway different in it's construction nature
> could be used as a fish_pass? If the answers to this questions are no
> and yes, put the fish_pass value apart of the main waterway key. This
> form seems simpler and more versatile to me.
> By the way: in the table of values added to the wiki there is a
> strange blank gap between the blue cells of ditch/brook and
> pressurised. Also the culvert cell is misaligned with respect to the
> cave cell and others. Is this intentional and has a meaning or an
> error when constructing the table that can be corrected?
> Regards, Javier
> 2018-07-19 8:30 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com
> <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>:
> 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 :
> While writing
> 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 :
> 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
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging