[Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

Cornelis 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):
name=Aseler Brücke

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 [1]
>     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
> features
> 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
> Abbey
> qualify as historic=ruins.  See
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Dogmaels_Abbey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_309701.jpg
> 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
> abandoned=yes.
>     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
> visible."
>     I find these tags, but none convinces me:
>     Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements
> Specifically for vessels.  "Wreck" as in "shipwreck."
>     Location=underwater [3] -> 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
> found
> 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
> "installed."
> So building=whatever + ruins=yes + location=underwater or
> ruins:building=whatever + location=underwater.
> --
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200608/c61dcfc8/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list