[Tagging] River crossing grade

[martianfreeloader]

I don't think these kinds of considerations should be a reason *not* to 
map/tag something on OSM.

Otherwise, the same reasoning could be used against mapping a 
notoriously dangerous road, a demanding hiking path or a climbing crag.

OSM should only provide information, not try to influence what people do 
with that information. Otherwise, there would be endless discussions 
about whether or not to map speed cameras, military areas, etc.

Of course, security-relevant information can be mapped. If we think 
relevant information is missing (e. g. danger from crocodiles), then I 
think, the better way to go is to add this information, rather than 
removing other relevant information.




On 09/05/2022 10:18, Warin wrote:
> For some river crossings in Australia OSM would then have the value 
> 'swim' on crocodile infested rivers.. that is NOT a good idea! And yes 
> people have died at some of these crossings by crocodile.
> 
> 
> I see no reason not to simply state a water depth.. even inaccurate it 
> will give a better idea than 'swim', 'wellies' etc.
> 
> 
> for tidal ..example depth at high_tide=x, depth at low_tide=y
> 
> 
> On 27/1/22 09:44, Timothy Noname wrote:
>> Last summer I visited Lopwell dam which is a River ford at low tide 
>> and about 6ft deep at high tide.
>>
>> https://maps.app.goo.gl/NYWvnVfeqzSMbhbN8
>>
>>
>> There is also another ford further down stream which is virtually 
>> impassable for anything but a proper 4x4 or tractor,
>> https://maps.app.goo.gl/TACQSMDdw9dUR18GA
>> (interesting to watch on YouTube though.)
>>
>>
>> If I were to tag Lopwell dam ford I would like to give it a max value 
>> of swim and a minimum value of wellies.  The foot bridge by its side 
>> is broken but once it's repaired would have a min value of dry and a 
>> max value of swim or wade.  This would provide useful information to 
>> anyone planning a journey.
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022, 20:53 ael via Tagging, 
>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>     On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 06:30:37PM +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>     > On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 18:13 +0000, Timothy Noname wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Tidal is certainly an unusual thing for a ford, I have seen one
>>     or two
>>     > but most roads affected tides are causways and the general rul
>>     is you
>>     > do not travel on them if they are covered with water. Tide
>>     implies salt
>>     > and I would certainly not drive one no matter how shallow the
>>     water is.
>>
>>     Well, I know of one dubious case in Cornwall:
>>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/270055625
>>     is an historic ford crossing the West Looe River which is just about
>>     tidal at that point. It was incorrectly mapped as a bridge
>>     some years ago: I have no idea how that could be so wrong, but then
>>     I have surveyed near there several times, and presumably the "bridge"
>>     was from armchair mapping.
>>
>>     I can just about imagine a local farmer crossing in a large tractor
>>     when the water is very low, but I have seen no sign that there is any
>>     modern use. Streetview seems to have got a bit of the track leading
>>     there: https://goo.gl/maps/9JeA6d6WN7Mbn72V6
>>
>>     Anyway, there can be genuine fords which are tidal, even if this
>>     particular example is disused.
>>
>>     ael
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging