[Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

Warin 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:
> Hello
>
> 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 :
>         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
>
>         François
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180719/7a71029d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list