[Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[François Lacombe]

2018-07-19 9:30 GMT+02:00 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
>

I'm very surprised to read you in such way
When waterway=spillway was proposed, you stood for not cluttering waterway
with more values.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Data_consumers_concern

"Drastically different" is subjective, furthermore not consistent with what
was discussed for spillways a few months ago.
waterway=canal isn't navigable in all situations, precisely depending on
usage=*

The point is both spillway and fish_pass are usages of a given construction
channeling water, not a proper waterway nature. And now I thank people who
make the past proposal move and distinguish between waterways natures and
usages.
Does anyone think fish_pass can be installed in this table?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values

All the best

François
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180719/980cb988/attachment.html>