[Talk-GB] Tagging canal staircase locks

[Tom Crocker]

Hi Tony

I think you're right; that's a good relation to use for both those
situations. I couldn't remember why it wasn't applicable in the cases I was
interested in but (having now re-read) it's only for man-made nodes and
open ways.

Tom

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021, 10:56 Tony Shield, <tonyosm9 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've been having similar thoughts for listed buildings of Historic England
> et al particularly gate piers. I looked at type = site and type=group and
> decided  to use type = site as site is in the wiki and has 158K uses, group
> is not in the wiki and has 250 uses.
>
> But I might just be following all the other sheep ... . .. .
>
> Tony
> On 14/08/2021 11:04, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
> I've experimentally enhanced my local Bingley Five Rise with both Edward's
> and Tom's suggestions.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/280721691
>
> My main motivation is how to highlight subjectively "interesting" features
> for tourism and education purposes with quantitative tagging. It is now
> possible to find the general location as a tourism=attraction and pull up
> full information about it, including all the locks. This is where I am
> going with a personal Android app.
>
> Being more serious about relations than my first thread comment, I loathe
> the over-use and often unnecessarily complex use of relations where a
> simpler solution will suffice. That said, it took a two cups of coffee
> research and thought but I think the not well-liked 'group' relation does
> seem ideal here IF you want more detail rather than just Where Is It?
>
> For Foxton Lock, I've followed Dave F's suggestion and simply added more
> detail to the existing place=locality tag. So, you can find it and know
> what it is using free-form text, but doesn't say anything quantitative
> about the locks themselves - perhaps that just doesn't matter?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2413496279 Foxton Locks
>
> I noticed that one can't find the Fort Augustus Flight at all in OSM, so I
> have tried a half-way approach and created a place=locality tag but put it
> on a group relation:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13089161 Fort Augustus Lock Flight
> (that appears to be the formal name), alt name Fort Augustus Locks
>
>
> NOTE: The edits are experimental, so if anyone wants to re-edit, FEEL
> FREE, (as long as it is not a straight deletion!).
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Other staircase locks mentioned in the thread or that I stumbled across:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.35194/-2.02505 Caen Hill -
> Difficult to find in OSM, so definitely needs some TLC
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239118607 Neptune's Staircase - Mapped
> as a tourism=attraction on a single way bounding each lock pool.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/330275022#map=15/53.1268/-2.6321
> Bunbury Staircase Locks. Mapped as place=location, tourism=attraction on a
> node
>
> https://www.droitwichcanals.co.uk/page24.html :
>
> "The largest narrow boat staircase is the Watford locks which has four
> steps and is located on the Leicester line of the Grand Union Canal.
> On the Droitwich Junction Canal we have a two staircase lock - locks 4 &
> 5. The next nearest Staircase lock are the Stourport locks on the
> Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal"
>
> On 2021-08-12 22:40, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> Fort Augustus Flight on the Caledonian Canal is also a staircase (pure
> staircase afaik; no passing place).
>
> I looked at the wiki. How about:
>
> waterway=canal
> lock=yes
> lock:type=staircase_lock
> [Other values: =tide_lock, etc? Pound lock assumed]
> lock_number=1/5
> lock_name:flight=Fort Augustus Flight
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, 19:49 Philip Barnes, <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I would have thought the obvious staircase locks to look at is Foxton.
>>
>> I remember going there with the school. From memory the gates are shared
>> between locks with a wide passing place in the middle of the flight.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021, Tom Crocker wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, 16:41 Michael Collinson, <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I would hazard a guess that you are the first to think of it and the
>> if
>> > > anyone else has it will Richard Fairhurst and possibly Gervase
>> Markham,
>> > > (not sure if he is still active?).
>> > >
>> > > Looking a Bingley Five Rise, in 2008 I (cyclist with very amateur
>> interest
>> > > in industrial heritage), mapped the the lock gates themselves. In
>> 2011,
>> > > dysteleologist <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dysteleologist>
>> with
>> > > an interest in man-made waterways thought to think of the locks
>> themselves,
>> > > creating canal way segments with lock=yes. At that is as far as it
>> has gone.
>> > >
>> > > Looks like a job for a relation? [Slight shudder and exits stage
>> left.]
>> > >
>> > > Mike
>> > >
>> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.85572/-1.83772  Bingley
>> Five Rise
>> > >
>> >
>> > Looks like another case where a general purpose group relation would be
>> > useful such as
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Group_Relation
>> > Unfortunately I don't think there's any support for it in renderers
>> > currently.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Sailfish device
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210815/b3df749e/attachment-0001.htm>