[Tagging] River crossing grade

Thu Jan 27 16:31:58 UTC 2022

> In terms of boat, shouldn't we just use the established tag of ferry?

If it's a proper ferry, then obviously yes. What if it's a simple dinghy
pulled manually to either bank with a rope or chain? Does it still qualify?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:24, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:

> In terms of boat, shouldn't we just use the established tag of ferry?
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Thursday, 27 January 2022, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> > Several definitions of the English word "ford":
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ford
> > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ford
> > https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/ford
> >
> > Several mention "wading".  One mentions "not using a boat".  None mention
> > stepping over, jumping over, stepping stones, or dry streambeds.  Yes OSM
> > tags do diverge from English word meanings, but if we can avoid it
> wouldn't
> > that be preferable?  ford=stepping_stones has around 8000 uses and
> > thankfully ford=boat has only around 50.  Doesn't seem too late to change
> > these.
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/ford#values
> >
> > My suggestion would be to introduce a new tag *water_crossing=yes* for a
> > generic water crossing.  This could be used for any water crossing where
> > the mapper does not know if it is a ford, a usually dry streambed, small
> > enough to step across on stones, or some other kind of crossing.  This
> key
> > could then have more specific values to add more detail:
> >
> > water_crossing=ford
> > water_crossing=stepping_stones
> > water_crossing=step_over
> > water_crossing=dry
> > water_crossing=boat
> >
> > Since ford=yes has been (mis)used so heavily to mean any generic water
> > crossing, we can say that ford=yes has the same meaning as
> > water_crossing=yes.  Perhaps even with this more detailed scheme there is
> > still some desire to tag how wet you would get at a water_crossing=ford,
> > but it would be limited to crossings where you *are* going to get wet.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:42 AM Sinus Pi <sinus+osmtag at sinpi.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Stepping stones are not a bridge
> > >
> > > So when does a structure built to facilitate dry-foot crossing become a
> > > bridge? I'm sure you'll agree that a plank thrown over a stream is a
> > > bridge. A handful of sticks and logs thrown into the stream, like a
> beaver
> > > dam, surely comprises a makeshift bridge, does it not?
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 16:29, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday, 27 January 2022, Sinus Pi wrote:
> > >> > How about a different approach to the stepping stones...
> > >> >
> > >> > What do you call a (usually, but not always) man-made structure that
> > >> allows
> > >> > you to cross a waterway dry-footed? A bridge.
> > >> > Is a plank thrown over a stream a bridge? Likely.
> > >> > Is a log fallen over the river, now commonly used as a crossing, a
> > >> bridge?
> > >> > Kind of.
> > >> > Is a stone chucked into the river a bridge? Well... why not?
> > >> >
> > >> > Hence: why not bridge=stepping_stones?
> > >> > And leave ford=* for where the waterway cannot (usually) be crossed
> > >> without
> > >> > getting your feet wet?
> > >>
> > >> Stepping stones are not a bridge, any more than they are a ford,
> although
> > >> that has been in use a long time.
> > >>
> > >> Why not highway=stepping stones, in the same way we have
> highway=steps.
> > >>
> > >> Both can only exist on a foot only way.
> > >>
> > >> In the case of stepping stones, they are often alongside an actual
> ford
> > >> for example https://www.geograph.org/photo/14321
> > >>
> > >> Phil (trigpoint)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 14:43, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I don't see much added value in this proposal.
> > >> > > Boat is not applicable (not a ford), use ferry for that:
> established
> > >> > > tagging.
> > >> > > Swimming, not a ford.
> > >> > > Stepping stones, I think then it's still a ford; established
> tagging.
> > >> > > Add depth, width as needed. An estimate will suffice. Dry=0 cm,
> > >> soles=5
> > >> > > cm, ankle=10 cm, knee=0,5 m, wade=1 m.
> > >> > > Intermittent, tidal: there is tagging for that.
> > >> > > Construction key could help if you want to tag an artificial ford.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Peter Elderson
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Op wo 26 jan. 2022 om 11:59 schreef Andrew Harvey <
> > >> > > andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I couldn't see anything on the wiki about river crossings grade
> so I
> > >> > >> started drafting a proposal
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_river_crossing
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Feedback or comments or help on it is most welcome.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> # Rational
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Particularly on hiking trails, the intersection of a
> highway=footway
> > >> or
> > >> > >> highway=path and a waterway=* can be defined as either:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> - A bridge bridge=yes which allows you to walk over the
> watercourse.
> > >> > >> - A culvert tunnel=culvert which takes the water through a tunnel
> > >> > >> underneath the walking path.
> > >> > >> - Stepping stones ford=stepping_stones which allow you to walk
> > >> through
> > >> > >> the watercourse without usually getting wet (unless the water
> level
> > >> is
> > >> > >> higher than the stepping stones, this tag doesn't imply you'll
> > >> always be
> > >> > >> able to get across)
> > >> > >> - A generic stream/river crossing ford=yes where your path passes
> > >> through
> > >> > >> the watercourse.
> > >> > >> In the last case of ford=yes it can be helpful to describe the
> usual
> > >> > >> condition of that stream/river crossing to help give consumers an
> > >> idea of
> > >> > >> what they can generally expect.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Mindful that conditions can change depending on upstream
> rainfall,
> > >> or it
> > >> > >> could vary seasonally, but for places where it's usually
> consistent,
> > >> this
> > >> > >> proposal proposes tagging it.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> # Proposed Tagging
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 0. creek/stream crossing where generally the creekbed is dry and
> you
> > >> > >> won't get wet.
> > >> > >> 1: creek/stream crossing where generally the water level is so
> low
> > >> that
> > >> > >> you won't have water ingress in your shoes
> > >> > >> 2: creek/stream crossing where your body will stay dry but you'll
> > >> want to
> > >> > >> take your shoes off if you prefer to keep them dry
> > >> > >> 3: river crossing where your body will get wet, may have a rope
> to
> > >> help
> > >> > >> you cross, but you can wade through the water and won't usually
> need
> > >> to swim
> > >> > >> 4: river crossing where you'll need to swim across
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> > >> Tagging mailing list
> > >> > >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > >> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >> > >>
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Tagging mailing list
> > >> > > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > >> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sent from my Sailfish device
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Tagging mailing list
> > >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220127/8a3a61cd/attachment-0001.htm>