[Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)
cornelis.H at web.de
Mon Jun 8 09:31:20 UTC 2020
This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this bridge
and wondered if it can be tagged in a more appropriate way:
Currently it is tagged like that (shortened):
With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as
normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry
roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved
with correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at
least three tags should be added:
Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i
can tell after reading the wiki article.
• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?
Am 06.06.20 um 12:47 schrieb Paul Allen:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana . <lanxanae at gmail.com
> <mailto:lanxanae at gmail.com>> wrote:
> We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions
> (buildings, bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs.
> Although they generally remain underwater, but in times of
> drought, when the reservoir level drops low enough, they can be
> visited on foot. Like this 
> On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or
> whatever corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature,
> The wiki page on historic features says that historic=* is to identify
> of historic interest. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic
> The key historic=* is not a synonym for old=*. Admittedly, the page also
> says it is somewhat subjective as to what is of historic interest, but
> it gives
> several criteria which I do not think are satisfied here.
> Nor is historic=ruins really appropriate. Some of the buildings may
> be intact.
> And they're not really of historic interest. The ruins of St Dogmaels
> qualify as historic=ruins. See
> A better way of handling non-historic ruins, is to use ruins=yes or
> namespace the key, such as ruins:building=house. There has been
> much debate on this list as to which of those two is correct and if one is
> preferred over the other in certain circumstances. All I'll point out
> is that with some renderers ruins:building=house does not render
> but with ruins=yes it does.
> If the building is not in ruins but has been abandoned (by virtue of being
> underwater most of the time, then abandoned:building=house or
> it’s in ruins and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that
> it’s underwater partially or totally and its access is
> occasionally possible, when the water drops?
> location=underwater accounts for normal state. You could possibly use a
> conditional to indicate occasional visibility but it's probably not
> worth it. Especially
> as most of the rare times it's uncovered it will only be partially
> uncovered to a
> greater or lesser extent. A note or description on the body of water
> is probably
> the way to handle it: "During times of low water some buildings may be
> I find these tags, but none convinces me:
> Historic=wreck  -> only for nautical elements
> Specifically for vessels. "Wreck" as in "shipwreck."
> Location=underwater  -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
> description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
> beneath”, it isn’t the case…
> But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which
> does not
> say "installed." I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you
> because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
> language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
> POIs. Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
> word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
> So building=whatever + ruins=yes + location=underwater or
> ruins:building=whatever + location=underwater.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging