[OSM-talk] landing stage - and things that stick out into water

[Mike Collinson]

Just got back from a long coastal road trip where this cropped up so 
apologies for resurrecting this one.

I drafted a couple of proposals below but have removed them from the 
Proposed Features index when I noticed that man_made=pier has already 
been approved.

My question to the proposer (sorry, I can't work out who you are) and 
anyone interested, is to what extent this new category covers these 
situations and what to do where it doesn't? :

- projecting structures for landing, mooring, loading vessels big and small.
- structures built for pleasure purposes such as Blackpool or Santa Monica Pier
- breakwater structure to influence the current or tide or to protect 
a harbour or shoreline from storms or erosion.

My problem is that a pier refers to a specific form of construction 
using piers which may exclude many examples of the above.  For 
example breakwaters may be solid filled concrete structures or piled 
natural boulders.  Or am I just being hopelessly pedantic?

If anyone is further interested, my own proposal would have been to 
have two separate categories: man_made=jetty and man_made=breakwater:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Jetties_and_piers
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Breakwater

Mike
Oz


At 08:53 PM 3/11/2006, matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk wrote:
>[ All the top-posting... it's so confusing :( - message reorganised below ]
>
> >> >> I need a landing stage, ....where boats can land.
> >> >>
> >> >> Has anyone invented that tag yet, we have loads of them.
> >> >> highway=landing stage ?
>
> >> > Interesting one that. If its a slipway ramp I'd perhaps be in two minds
> >> > whether to call it waterway=slipway or highway=slipway but 
> would probably
> >> > pick the latter as its not actually part of the waterway itself. For a
> >> > landing stage its very much in the water (assuming we are talking about
> >> > the same thing) but it too has a highway rather than waterway 
> function so
> >> > highway=landing_stage would make logical sense to me.
>
> >> not a slipway, I mean a pier (on piers) made from wood, sometimes concrete
> >> for boats on lakes, rivers. Small boats, like barges, not cargo ships.
>
> > There is a proposal for manmade=pier, would that do
>
>I think that using highway= is wrong. My knowledge of piers and landing stages
>is rather non-existant, but I have seen some that you can walk down, some that
>could be driven down, and some that have railways only.
>
>So this could eventually require something like
>
>   highway=pier_footway
>   highway=pier_service
>   railway=pier_rail
>   highway=landing_stage_footway
>
>Better to have
>
>   <something>=pier
>   highway=service
>
>   <something>=pier
>   railway=rail
>   highway=footway
>
>   <something>=landing_stage
>   highway=footway
>
>...the question is what do you use as "something"? ;-)
>
>I agree, "manmade" sounds a bit wierd, although it is true. Waterway is out -
>it's used for things that _are_ water, so the double use for things that go
>on/in water is confusing. Something like "wateraccess" maybe? This 
>is probably a
>dreadful suggestion, as I'm usually useless at thinking this stuff up.
>
>This would be linear
>
>   something like a small landing stage:
>     wateraccess=landing_stage
>     highway=footway
>
>an area
>
>   maybe a larger pier:
>     wateraccess=pier
>     wateraccess_construction=concrete
>
>   (this would contain things like highway=footway or railway=rail as separate
>   ways)
>
>or a node
>
>   on a riverbank:
>     wateraccess=boat_hut
>
>There is already leisure=slipway. This seems like a bad use of 
>"leisure" to me;
>I think (linear) wateraccess=slipway is probably better.
>
>Cheers,
>
>--
>Matthew
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk