[Talk-GB] Tagging canal staircase locks
Tony Shield
tonyosm9 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 18 10:56:21 UTC 2021
Hi
I agree with you. Tagging something like this is difficult. The tagging
depends on the reason for tagging, the Leeds & Liverpool canal is a
relation which contains the water ways of this feature, if the
staircase locks are being tagged because of their tourism features then
a relation containing all of the tourism objects is appropriate and
tagged with appropriate heritage and tourism tags - I think at the
relation level as the objects all combine to make the feature.
Tony
On 16/08/2021 22:59, Tom Crocker wrote:
> Another thought on this. The site relation requires a main tag. That's
> fine for the piers with historic=heritage. It might also be alright
> for a lock flight where combined with place=locality if that's an
> appropriate tag, although you might argue it is an extant feature. The
> site page also points out there are many cases where the main tag is
> site=* and that is undocumented, although having browsed the first few
> pages on taginfo many seem like they could just be replaced with a
> documented tag. So, site=lock_flight would be an alternative
> possibility but perhaps not very desirable either.
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 12:23, Tom Crocker <tomcrockermail at gmail.com
> <mailto:tomcrockermail at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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 <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210818/f2686d3a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list