[Tagging] RFC: Seaway key - proposal for mapping ports

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 16:07:34 UTC 2021

On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 14:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> > On 6 Mar 2021, at 14:35, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If there is no intention to use seaway
> > to map routes then using it for termini is confusing, false to dictionary
> > definitions, false to common usage, and a bad choice of tag name.
> >
> > It is an exceptionally bad choice of tag name if it will be used to map
> > facilities for which there are no associated routes (such as fishing
> ports
> > with no ferry or shipping services).
> maybe I should have chosen aeroway for explaining the analogy, as it is
> more similar to seaway than railway is. aeroway=helipad? hangar? These are
> among the most used values but have nothing to do with „routes“

Had I been around at the time aeroway was proposed I would have said it
was a bad name.  Mitigated slightly because the word itself does not
appear to be common use, but still bad because the "way" part is
derived from the Middle English word for "path."  OSM doesn't
(as far as I can tell) support flight paths, and although many
aeroway=* structures are involved with scheduled flight paths, it was
still a bad choice of name.

The seaway situation isn't comparable.  OSM does map shipping
routes, but not with the seaway tag.  There are facilities you
propose mapping that aren't on any scheduled routes of any kind.

Lexically, it is a bad name.  Lexically aeroway was also a bad name
We have to live with bad mistakes of the past, that doesn't mean
we ought to copy them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210306/e1da9dd8/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list