[Tagging] RFC: Seaway key - proposal for mapping ports
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 16:39:39 UTC 2021
>> This proposal also doesn't seem to address specifically how we should
>> tag ports in sweat water bodies, large lakes have large boats both
>> for cargo and as ferries. However this proposal only seems to target
>> "sea" ports.
> indeed it is covering infrastructure for ocean going vessels, leaving
> out those places that are used only by inland water traffic (assuming
> they were already covered in waterway, or could be added there if
> still missing). When facilities are serving both, the new key
> guarantees that both kind of tags can be applied
Let's make a step back then what the scope should be. I think, up to
today the existing harbour=* and seamark keys are used for both sea or
ocean and inland facilities. Because of that fact they have the same
gaps and shortcomings, which we should improve. In my opinion they use
or provide similar or exactly identical facilities. Trying to reduce the
scope to only ocean and sea facilities will create a huge grey zone.
Creates ambiguity, where in the real world this ambiguity does not
exist. You motivate and compare often with highway and raiilway, even
air transport. But in none of these there was a need identified to
split between international or more localised facilities (all water
bodies, inland, sea, oceans are just parts of the waterway ecosystem).
So I don't get it Martin, what should be a fundamental argument to make
a split in this case.
That brings us back of course to why we should use a new seaway key
instead of extending and tagging these facilities under waterway.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging