[Tagging] Canoe route

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 18:31:05 UTC 2018


Thanks, I'll check it out. It helps to know that tagging route=ferry on a
way is the accepted procedure. I see no reason not to treat my
untagged ways in the same manner as per your suggestion.

The bit about rendering isn't critical to my solution as long as the
connectedness of the route is assured and the tagging is correct at the
present time. I mentioned rendering only because those crossings were
invisible without some sort of colored line indicating their presence.

Dave

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:20 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that waterway=river and route=ferry are incorrect and that
>> route=ferry is slightly less so <g>.
>>
>
> If you register your canoe as a merchant vessel and pay yourself for the
> trip, it's a ferry!
>
>>
>> But do you mean the untagged ways should be tagged with route=canoe as
>> someone else suggested, or that the entire relation should be tagged that
>> way?
>>
>
> Both.  Route=ferry is used on ways (and renders).  The individual ways are
> gathered into relations.  Currently
> your route=canoe relation has footpaths and untagged ways.  I think (I
> could be wrong) that it should consist of
> footpaths and ways tagged with route=canoe.
>
> Try it and see what happens.  Probably nothing, but at least it makes a
> little more sense when interpreting the
> relation: "footpath, canoe route, footpath, canoe route" rather than
> "footpath, unknown, footpath, unknown."  If it's
> valid to use route=ferry for ways on open water (it is) then it's almost
> as valid to use route=canoe for ways on open
> water.  Slightly less valid because route=ferry is documented
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route
> but route=canoe is not, however that page says "If used on ways, route
> describes a route which is not linked
> to a physical object like streets or rails. This applies for [...] ships
> on open water [...] airplanes."
>
> So it's valid.  Might not be rendered (yet) but valid.  Or, at the very
> minimum, not obviously wrong.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180630/2c77db6a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list