[Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

Javier Sánchez Portero javiersanp at gmail.com
Thu Jul 19 08:22:47 UTC 2018


Actually I'm not familiar with fish passes. Could any one provide more
sample images? And one question: Could a fish pass look like a short and
very narrow canal like the images in this pages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acequia

2018-07-19 9:15 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:

> 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>:
>
>> 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:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass
>>
>> While writing 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
>>
>> 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
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20180719/9abd50de/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list