[Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 13:46:12 UTC 2019


+1
I would even go for highway=fairway to route over an area, instead of the
currently used invisible highway=path.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 12 feb. 2019 om 13:49 schreef Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com
>:

> The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see
> how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
> should be removed.
>
> I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we
> can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is
> not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a
> preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not,
> however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that
> requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying
> to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable
> route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route
> in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway
> describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys."
>
> Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated
> for use on such routes anyway.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Fernando Trebien <
> fernando.trebien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to bring this back so much time later. I just want to confirm a
>> detail.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM Multi Modaal <multimodaal at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > I could go along with the extension of the definition of
>> waterway=canal to
>> > > cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this
>> solution
>> > > is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal.
>> Personally
>> > > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.
>> > I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be
>> better, but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data
>> users I see no advantage in banning current practice which is also in
>> concordance with the wiki for instance waterway=fairway  (fairway on a lake
>> is added as an addition to waterway=canal/river )
>>
>> Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is
>> "questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this
>> is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be
>> used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed
>> ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a
>> navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement
>> for routing).
>>
>> If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway
>> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Trebien
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190212/7ed217a4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list