[Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 16:45:32 UTC 2019

Going back to the original example, I would say, not only the lock but the
entire cut, in particular way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243353333
should be tagged as waterway=canal. This scheme applies to most river-lock
arrangements, the "cuts" are nearly almost artificial canals.
At least this seems obvious to me for those cases were the "natural" river
bed is still there but blocked by a weir, and the the navigation channel
goes through a lock using an "artificial" canal.

But I also see problems with this approach regarding the distinction
between natural bed and artificial canals. If we take one of the biggest
rivers in Europe: The Rhine downstream from Basel and to Bingen has been
re-bedded nearly completely (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Rhine)
and, by the above arguments, should be re-tagged as canal, which seems
So maybe the concepts ar not as well defined as I thought.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 18:18, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>

> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 12:03, Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>> The water flowing through it is still river water.
> Many artificial man made infrastructure involve natural water taken from
> rivers and streams.
> The point of waterway isn't only to tag water but the kind of way it is
> flowing in (without dealing with usage which is adressed with usage=*)
> Lock sections don't get "canal" as name but "lock".
> Then waterway=canal + lock=yes sounds correct
> All the best
> François
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190425/2be700d0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list