[Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 22:23:58 UTC 2020


On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 22:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jul 28, 2020, 22:09 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier
> with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the
> part that is on land.
>
>
> There is no part of a pier on land.  Not according to the wiki
>
> In such case likely wiki should be fixed.
>

If we agree the wiki is wrong, it should be fixed.


> Pier may have also section over land.
>

If the section over land is raised on legs like the section over water,
yes.  Otherwise, maybe.  Or maybe not.  I've seen a pier where
the service road leading to it goes right to the land/water
boundary.  Floating pier.

> : "A pier is a raised
> walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on
> land,
> otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing."
>
> Or you overintepret it
>

Or maybe I've seen floating piers. :)

"raised walkway over water" may be interpreted as "main part is over water"
> or as "not even smallest part is over land".
>

I'm often overly-pedantic, but even when I switch off my pedantry I can't
get "main part is over water" from "raised walkway over water."  If it
had said "raised walkway partially over water" or "raised walkway mostly
over water" then I'd go with your interpretation.  As it stands, and taken
in conjunction with that first paragraph, a pier is only over water
(according to the wiki).

>
> Similarly "bridge over river" does not mean that only part directly above
> river
> is a bridge, typical bridge has also parts over land.
>

I'm almost persuaded.  But the wiki entry for bridge doesn't exclude part of
it being on land in the way that the wiki definition of pier does.

>
> "connect the pier with other ways on land" does not imply that pier
> has no section over land.
>

That sentence is ambiguous.  It is compatible with a node on the
land/water boundary that acts as the connection.

> Just because
> the surface the person walks on is continuous doesn't make the bit
> that's on land a pier.
>
> In case of continued structure I would consider it as a part of pier.
>

So would I, if the bit on land is on pillars.  That's not what the wiki
says,
though.  And not how the OP's example rendered.

So there's a carto problem and there's a wiki problem.  And I was right
to map floating piers the way I did. :)

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200728/f2bf1002/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list