Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

Sure, it works for me. I've only mapped one canoe route so far and, based
on this thread, have already added the waterway=fairway tag to all the
previously untagged ways in the route.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:12 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 01:30, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've applied the two fairway tags to a major fairway on a lake [1][2],
>> please let me know if you think anything should be mapped differently.
>>
>
> At first glance, it seems to work, thanks Fernando.
>
> Dave / Kenny - would it also work for your canoeing purposes?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 01:30, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

>
> I've applied the two fairway tags to a major fairway on a lake [1][2],
> please let me know if you think anything should be mapped differently.
>

At first glance, it seems to work, thanks Fernando.

Dave / Kenny - would it also work for your canoeing purposes?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Fernando Trebien]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:45 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked) channel, 
> then it also gets seamark:type=fairway.

I've applied the two fairway tags to a major fairway on a lake [1][2],
please let me know if you think anything should be mapped differently.

[1] Fairway route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2390716
[2] Fairway area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671582427

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

"Direction of flow" isn't quite right for a canoe route that crosses a
lake. Also, it would be rare but not impossible, for a canoe route to move
against the flow when traversing a stream. But, unless someone can think of
a better way to word this, I'm okay with what's there. Such refinements can
be made in the route relation perhaps. Direction "forward" or "backward"
come to mind although I've never used them for a canoe route myself. The
only canoe route I've ever mapped can be traveled in either direction if
one wishes.

Dave

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:49 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 00:12, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> For well-known partially unmarked shipping routes, I think there would
>> be no problem lifting the requirement of navigation marks. But I'm not
>> sure if this applies to canoe routes, which are usually not marked.
>> I'm neither a sailor nor a native English speaker, so I think I'd
>> better leave this decision to those experienced in marine navigation.
>>
>
> Going off my own knowledge of small craft, along with Dave & Kevin's canoe
> experience :-), I've edited the page as discussed above
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway
>
> Are we all happy with that?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 00:12, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

>
> For well-known partially unmarked shipping routes, I think there would
> be no problem lifting the requirement of navigation marks. But I'm not
> sure if this applies to canoe routes, which are usually not marked.
> I'm neither a sailor nor a native English speaker, so I think I'd
> better leave this decision to those experienced in marine navigation.
>

Going off my own knowledge of small craft, along with Dave & Kevin's canoe
experience :-), I've edited the page as discussed above
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway

Are we all happy with that?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Fernando Trebien]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:45 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> I'd suggest a slight change of wording to clarify it even further:
>
> "A navigable route in a lake or sea. If the navigable area is marked by buoys 
> or navigation markers, it should also be mapped with seamark:type=fairway."
>
> So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked) channel, 
> then it also gets seamark:type=fairway.

For well-known partially unmarked shipping routes, I think there would
be no problem lifting the requirement of navigation marks. But I'm not
sure if this applies to canoe routes, which are usually not marked.
I'm neither a sailor nor a native English speaker, so I think I'd
better leave this decision to those experienced in marine navigation.

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

>So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked)
channel, then it also gets seamark:type
=fairway
.

>Does that work?

Yes, indeed. That would work very well IMO.

As Kevin pointed out, I have used route=canoe in a relation but without
adding a tag to the ways, most maps either cannot, or choose not to, render
them so you're left with footways that end on both sides of a lake (the
portages) with no connection between them. Solving this problem is the
reason I made my suggestion.

Dave

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:45 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot
>> see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
>> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
>> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
>> should be removed.
>>
>> I've updated the wiki, please have a look and let me know if you
>> disagree. [1]
>>
>> > but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as
>> well.
>>
>> From the definition of waterway=fairway, it can be used for the
>> members of canoe routes as long as they are artificial and marked by
>> buoys. I expect this to be rare though.
>>
>
> I'd suggest a slight change of wording to clarify it even further:
>
> "A navigable route in a lake or sea. If the navigable area is marked by
> buoys or navigation markers, it should also be mapped with seamark:type
> =fairway
> ."
>
> So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked)
> channel, then it also gets seamark:type
> =fairway
> .
>
> Does that work?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >
> > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot
> see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
> should be removed.
>
> I've updated the wiki, please have a look and let me know if you disagree.
> [1]
>
> > but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as
> well.
>
> From the definition of waterway=fairway, it can be used for the
> members of canoe routes as long as they are artificial and marked by
> buoys. I expect this to be rare though.
>

I'd suggest a slight change of wording to clarify it even further:

"A navigable route in a lake or sea. If the navigable area is marked by
buoys or navigation markers, it should also be mapped with seamark:type
=fairway
."

So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked)
channel, then it also gets seamark:type
=fairway
.

Does that work?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see how 
> anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or 
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a 
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note 
> should be removed.

I've updated the wiki, please have a look and let me know if you disagree. [1]

> I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway

Well, the wiki says it is "de facto," I think it means it is already accepted.

> but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well.

From the definition of waterway=fairway, it can be used for the
members of canoe routes as long as they are artificial and marked by
buoys. I expect this to be rare though.

The definition of route=canoe says it should be used only in
relations, but I think it may be comparable to route=ferry, which is
allowed both in relations and in ways (I believe this is to make
rendering ferry routes easier). It seems that specialized maps already
render route=canoe relations [2].

Regards,

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AGeneric%3AMap_Features%3Awaterway=revision=1790679=1787712
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dcanoe#Rendering

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Feb 2019, at 12:05, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> Certainly, the portion of a canoe trail that crosses a lake or pond is 
> indefinite.


usually you would try to go in a straight line though, unless there are other 
factors like scenic highlights or currents, that seem worth the detour.
I’m not opposing marking these with additional tags, but I would not expect 
them to have fundamentally different tagging. Let’s keep it simple. This is no 
different to a walking route crossing a square.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

Certainly, the portion of a canoe trail that crosses a lake or pond is
indefinite. I assume also that any part that travels along a river would
tend to follow its centerline. Such portions of a route can also be tagged
as indefinite=yes but what do people think about the canoe route as
waterway=fairway idea?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:12 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:49 AM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >
> > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot
> see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
> should be removed.
> >
> > I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we
> can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is
> not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a
> preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not,
> however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that
> requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying
> to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable
> route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route
> in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway
> describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys."
> >
> > Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated
> for use on such routes anyway.
>
> We recently were also discussing the idea of having an
> 'indefinite=yes' tag to mark the indefiniite portion of the closed set
> of ways that encloses a peninsula, isthmus, bay, strait, or similar
> form.  Is the on-water portion of a canoe route an indefinite way?  (I
> would imagine that portages are usually quite definite, but I've
> carried on a few where the mud was only slightly too thick to pole or
> paddle through.)
>
> It appears that the nearest thing on the seamark schema is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Leading_Lines - and it
> states specifically that the centreline of a fairway should not be
> mapped.  In the nautical world, there are usually well-defined and
> charted limits of safe navigation, so that a fairway will be bounded
> by clearing lines. In the canoe world, it is for the boatman to decide
> where safe water is at the lake's current height or the river's
> current rate of flow.
>
> I'd imagine that a canoe route that follows a river would ordinarily
> share the river "centerline" or Thalweg with the 'river' object,
> except for where it comes ashore to portage or is plotted in a
> specific track around obstacles. On a paddle-and-portage from lake to
> lake, the waterway portions are quite indefinite indeed!
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:49 AM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see how 
> anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or 
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a 
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note 
> should be removed.
>
> I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we can 
> somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is not as 
> well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a preferred 
> path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not, however, 
> typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that requirement or made 
> it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying to get a modification 
> approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable route in a lake or sea 
> marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route in a lake or sea usually 
> marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway describing a canoe route, there 
> would typically be no buoys."
>
> Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated for 
> use on such routes anyway.

We recently were also discussing the idea of having an
'indefinite=yes' tag to mark the indefiniite portion of the closed set
of ways that encloses a peninsula, isthmus, bay, strait, or similar
form.  Is the on-water portion of a canoe route an indefinite way?  (I
would imagine that portages are usually quite definite, but I've
carried on a few where the mud was only slightly too thick to pole or
paddle through.)

It appears that the nearest thing on the seamark schema is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Leading_Lines - and it
states specifically that the centreline of a fairway should not be
mapped.  In the nautical world, there are usually well-defined and
charted limits of safe navigation, so that a fairway will be bounded
by clearing lines. In the canoe world, it is for the boatman to decide
where safe water is at the lake's current height or the river's
current rate of flow.

I'd imagine that a canoe route that follows a river would ordinarily
share the river "centerline" or Thalweg with the 'river' object,
except for where it comes ashore to portage or is plotted in a
specific track around obstacles. On a paddle-and-portage from lake to
lake, the waterway portions are quite indefinite indeed!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Peter Elderson]

+1
I would even go for highway=fairway to route over an area, instead of the
currently used invisible highway=path.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 12 feb. 2019 om 13:49 schreef Dave Swarthout :

> The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see
> how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
> should be removed.
>
> I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we
> can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is
> not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a
> preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not,
> however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that
> requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying
> to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable
> route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route
> in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway
> describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys."
>
> Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated
> for use on such routes anyway.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Fernando Trebien <
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to bring this back so much time later. I just want to confirm a
>> detail.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM Multi Modaal 
>> wrote:
>> > > I could go along with the extension of the definition of
>> waterway=canal to
>> > > cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this
>> solution
>> > > is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal.
>> Personally
>> > > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.
>> > I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be
>> better, but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data
>> users I see no advantage in banning current practice which is also in
>> concordance with the wiki for instance waterway=fairway  (fairway on a lake
>> is added as an addition to waterway=canal/river )
>>
>> Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is
>> "questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this
>> is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be
>> used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed
>> ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a
>> navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement
>> for routing).
>>
>> If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway
>> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Trebien
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see
how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
should be removed.

I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we
can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is
not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a
preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not,
however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that
requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying
to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable
route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route
in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway
describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys."

Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated for
use on such routes anyway.

Dave



On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> Sorry to bring this back so much time later. I just want to confirm a
> detail.
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM Multi Modaal  wrote:
> > > I could go along with the extension of the definition of
> waterway=canal to
> > > cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this
> solution
> > > is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal.
> Personally
> > > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.
> > I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be better,
> but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data users I see
> no advantage in banning current practice which is also in concordance with
> the wiki for instance waterway=fairway  (fairway on a lake is added as an
> addition to waterway=canal/river )
>
> Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is
> "questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this
> is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be
> used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed
> ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a
> navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement
> for routing).
>
> If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki.
>
> Regards,
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Fernando Trebien]

Sorry to bring this back so much time later. I just want to confirm a detail.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM Multi Modaal  wrote:
> > I could go along with the extension of the definition of waterway=canal to
> > cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this solution
> > is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal. Personally
> > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.
> I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be better, but 
> until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data users I see no 
> advantage in banning current practice which is also in concordance with the 
> wiki for instance waterway=fairway  (fairway on a lake is added as an 
> addition to waterway=canal/river )

Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is
"questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this
is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be
used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed
ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a
navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement
for routing).

If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki.

Regards,

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 03 July 2018, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> A waterway=canal, waterway=river, or waterway=stream way inside a
> lake or pond is probably appropriate to connect an in-flow to an
> out-flow in a direct line, to allow software to easily trace
> waterways through lakes or ponds (which are essentially just widening
> of the waterway) without having to process areas. In this case the
> waterway going through the larger body of water should share a node
> with the outline of the lake at the in-flow and out-flow points where
> they way and the outline intersect.

Connecting waterways through lakes based on flow has been a subject of 
dispute for a long time.  It is highly unlikely that there will ever be 
full agreement on this and even less that this will manifest in 
mapping.  It often boils down to questions like 'Does the Rhone flow 
through Lac Laman or does it enter into Lac Laman and exit again on the 
other side'.

But all of this is something completely separate from the question how 
to map verifiable navigation routes within lakes.

Note a very practical reason not to use the waterway key for mapping 
navigation routes within lakes is that mapping a navigation route that 
coincidences with a river/canal running through and being mapped 
through a lake is much simpler because you can just use an additional 
tag instead of a separate geometry.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Multi Modaal]

Hi all,


>François
>I'd add that waterway=canal is really often supported by an artificial
>structure and use it to cross a lake as a logical connection between entry
>points is awkward.



I fully agree that it is not ideal, but in the current situation it is the
lesser of all evils.



And please note that I am not proposing a new way of tagging, I am just
pointing out the current mapping practice in The Netherlands (which is full
of navigable waterways with canals changing into lakes or something in
between and back again and where the distinction between natural and
man_made is theoretical at best) and some other countries I have seen.



I came across the undocumented tag waterway=lake by accident. Personally I
like that much better than waterway=canal on a lake, but as long as that
tag is not widely accepted by data users I thing it really should not be
used as a replacement where waterway=canal is currently being used.



However, if someone feels so strongly about the negative aspects of the
current use of waterway=canal and starts a formal proposal, please let me
know, I would be happy to support that.



 >Why simpler waterway=stream or waterway=river aren't suitable for routing
purposes?
I fully agree that waterway=river  would be much better than waterway=canal
in a situation where one more  rivers (described in waterway=river as
as “linear
flow larger natural waterways” ) run into a lake and out again, I think /
hope that that is not disputed.



My mentioning of using waterway=canal was meant for situations with either
isolated lakes (because of the portages I understood the Alaskan example as
such) or lakes in a watersystem without linear flow, such as a boezem
(separated from and often lower than the open water/sea, to which it is
pumped up, the direction (north/south/west being dependent on the pumping
station being used).



Waterway=stream would be appropriate for a linear flow connection between
two lakes if it is so narrow that  (according to the wiki) can be jumped
across. Waterways so narrow are normally not navigable even for canoes
(some specialized/limited  whitewater canoes excluded, but you won’t be
navigating that acroos a lake). Putting waterway=stream across a lake would
suggest that the lake passage is also narrow enough to jump across and not
navigable, so there I would suggest waterway=river  nstead of stream for
the part across the lake.


>Volker Schmidt
> For the canoe routes, which started the canoe side of this discussion, I
> would say that the in-water ways should be tagged as route=canoe without
> problems and in concordance with the wiki for the route key "route=x".

I pointed out several problems with the use of route=x in my previous post
(see below).

These problems seem to be a lot bigger than the problem with waterway=canal.



Furthermore, using route=x with a value that is similar with an transport
mode (as described on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ) is
NOT in concordance with the wiki, for instance see:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhorse



The wiki states in all these cases that route=foot / bicycle/ horse should
be used on relations and NOT on ways. And this is for good reasons as I
mentioned earlier, because route=foot an a way would have a really
different meaning than the same tag on a relation



You will the same for route=canoe, but that is just because I copied the
template for route=horse


> I could go along with the extension of the definition of waterway=canal to
> cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this solution
> is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal.
Personally
> I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.
I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be better,
but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data users I see
no advantage in banning current practice which is also in concordance with
the wiki for instance waterway=fairway  (fairway on a lake is added as an
addition to waterway=canal/river )




> BTW, the quoted 1800 uses of canal=x are nearly all "canal=fixme", so to
> say that "canal=x" is an established way of tagging is misleading.

You are right, I saw that  after writing my post, apologies. Nevertheless
other values are also used and in doesn’t hurt to have a key that specifies
a tag wich already (besides this discussion) has multiple uses in the wiki
(“transportation, hydro-power generation or irrigation purposes”)



>> *Linear elements in the lake / lagoon etc*
> >>
> >> For the linear elements across the lake route=ferry would be very
> >> misleading; as I hiker I would expect a boat there to bring me to the
> other
> >> shore (like the nice 3 rowing boat-system in the Scandinavian artic).
> >>
> >> Route=canoe seems better when you just look at the wiki definition, but
> >> in 

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Mateusz Konieczny]

3. Lipiec 2018 12:24 od osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
:

> A waterway=canal, waterway=river, or waterway=stream way inside a lake or 
> pond is probably appropriate to connect an in-flow to an out-flow in a direct 
> line, to allow software to easily trace waterways through lakes or ponds 
> (which are essentially just widening of the waterway) without having to 
> process areas.




I am not sure whatever "to allow software to easily trace" is appropriate 
reason,

but at least in some cases rivers/streams are considered to not be interrupted 
by


lake/pond (so stream is not considered to end before lake and start again, but 
is 


considered to exist within lake).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Christoph Hormann 
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2018 18:26
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels
> 
> On Tuesday 03 July 2018, Multi Modaal wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Summary:
> > I would suggest using [waterway=canal] or [waterway=river] for
> > routable lines across bodies of water despite the fact that you
> > normally wouldn’t call them as such. This because of common current
> > practice for routable networks and other practical reasons.
> 
> Note Multi Modaal is trying to push this idea of tagging for the
> router into the wiki as established use of waterway=canal (which is
> obviously not).  Here what i added there explaining why this is a
> very bad idea:
> 
> Such use of waterway=canal is in fundamental conflict with the main
> purpose and primary use of the tag to map artificial physical
> waterways and is therefore strongly discouraged. It can primarily be
> considered Tagging for the renderer to place labels and tagging for
> the router.

Fully agree. 

waterway=canal or waterway=river are not appropriate for mapping either 
physically unmarked routes or routes marked with buoys inside larger bodies of 
water.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway does seem 
appropriate for the later. So that's basically the answer to the "nautical 
channels" thread.

A waterway=canal, waterway=river, or waterway=stream way inside a lake or pond 
is probably appropriate to connect an in-flow to an out-flow in a direct line, 
to allow software to easily trace waterways through lakes or ponds (which are 
essentially just widening of the waterway) without having to process areas. In 
this case the waterway going through the larger body of water should share a 
node with the outline of the lake at the in-flow and out-flow points where they 
way and the outline intersect.

> The commonly used method for mapping boat routes with regular service
> is route=ferry. Routes used casually, non-regularly and with wide
> variation in geometry by private boats are not verifiable and should
> therefore not be mapped in OSM.

Where you have a lake, and there are a pair of pretty clear points where it's 
possible to put your canoe (or similar sized boat) in or take it out of the 
water, I do think it's appropriate to connect these points with a route=canoe 
way if it is part of a route=canoe relation (which includes both water sections 
and sections on land).
So that's basically the answer to the "canoe route" thread.

> I hope there will be community consensus not to abuse waterway=canal
> or other waterway tags this way and we can remove the whole paragraph
> again.
> 
> On a general note and as a suggestion to mappers who might be
> irritated about how to deal with OSMs free form tagging system:
> 
> * inventing new tags so far not used and documented is fine - but you
> should document them.
> * adding new uses to secondary tags (like using surface=* or usage=*
> on features it is so far not commonly used on) is also fine if it
> matches previous use in meaning.
> * adding new uses to existing primary tags is highly sensitive and
> should usually be discussed first.  Creating a new tag is almost
> always a better idea.

I agree with all of that.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[François Lacombe]

Hi Christoph,

2018-07-03 10:25 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> * inventing new tags so far not used and documented is fine - but you
> should document them.
> * adding new uses to secondary tags (like using surface=* or usage=* on
> features it is so far not commonly used on) is also fine if it matches
> previous use in meaning.
> * adding new uses to existing primary tags is highly sensitive and
> should usually be discussed first.  Creating a new tag is almost always
> a better idea.
>

I merely agree with all those points except there is no primary tags but
only tags.
What is primary for a given mapper will be secondary for someone else,
despite so called primary tags are more used than any others.
A tag may be primary for a specific render but secondary for routing. Then,
saying a tag is primary is tagging for render or routing or any particular
purpose.

Given example is waterways in tunnel
If I look for waterways, then waterway=* will be the main tag I'll look for
If I look for tunnels, then I'll look for tunnel=* and don't even look at
waterway=*

Then it should be really simpler to extend values on existing tags when
it's relevant (which is the only criteria)
Defining primary and secondary tags just put pointless barriers on
refinement process and I don't see any benefit.

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 03 July 2018, Multi Modaal wrote:
> [...]
>
> Summary:
> I would suggest using [waterway=canal] or [waterway=river] for
> routable lines across bodies of water despite the fact that you
> normally wouldn’t call them as such. This because of common current
> practice for routable networks and other practical reasons.

Note Multi Modaal is trying to push this idea of tagging for the router 
into the wiki as established use of waterway=canal (which is obviously 
not).  Here what i added there explaining why this is a very bad idea:

Such use of waterway=canal is in fundamental conflict with the main 
purpose and primary use of the tag to map artificial physical waterways 
and is therefore strongly discouraged. It can primarily be considered 
Tagging for the renderer to place labels and tagging for the router. 
The commonly used method for mapping boat routes with regular service 
is route=ferry. Routes used casually, non-regularly and with wide 
variation in geometry by private boats are not verifiable and should 
therefore not be mapped in OSM. 

I hope there will be community consensus not to abuse waterway=canal or 
other waterway tags this way and we can remove the whole paragraph 
again.

On a general note and as a suggestion to mappers who might be irritated 
about how to deal with OSMs free form tagging system:

* inventing new tags so far not used and documented is fine - but you 
should document them.
* adding new uses to secondary tags (like using surface=* or usage=* on 
features it is so far not commonly used on) is also fine if it matches 
previous use in meaning.
* adding new uses to existing primary tags is highly sensitive and 
should usually be discussed first.  Creating a new tag is almost always 
a better idea.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Consecutively to edits of page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:waterway%3Dcanal=history
I'd add that waterway=canal is really often supported by an artificial
structure and use it to cross a lake as a logical connection between entry
points is awkward.

Why simpler waterway=stream or waterway=river aren't suitable for routing
purposes?

All the best

François

2018-07-03 0:37 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

> I do not agree with the proposal to use waterway=canal with a new canal=x
> tag to indicate a non-existant waterway for canoes.
> For the canoe routes, which started the canoe side of this discussion, I
> would say that the in-water ways should be tagged as route=canoe without
> problems and in concordance with the wiki for the route key "route=x".
>
> I could go along with the extension of the definition of waterway=canal to
> cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this solution
> is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal. Personally
> I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.
>
> BTW, the quoted 1800 uses of canal=x are nearly all "canal=fixme", so to
> say that "canal=x" is an established way of tagging is misleading.
>
>
>
> On 3 July 2018 at 00:02, Multi Modaal  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> New on this mailing list (but not on OSM), so please forgive me if I
>> didn't quite understand the old-school interface of this mailing list (-;
>>
>> It looks like both these threads are strongly interconnected, so I try to
>> address them both, as they also refer to the work that I am doing myself
>> mapping water areas as wel as waterway networks (for routing and recently
>> starting to develop a canoeing map)
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037677.html
>>
>> Summary:
>> I would suggest using [waterway=canal] or [waterway=river] for routable
>> lines across bodies of water despite the fact that you normally wouldn’t
>> call them as such. This because of common current practice for routable
>> networks and other practical reasons.
>>
>> This is also in line with the description of common practice in
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway
>> "Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked
>> by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a
>> replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal. "
>>
>> But to be able to distinguish normal canals from these routing lines, a
>> Wiki for the key [Canal] is just made, where appropriate values can be
>> added without messing up routing (such as canal=virtual?).
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *Rendering*
>>
>> Despite being a canoeist myself, I think that it's good that canoe routes
>> / canal lines are not rendered on general maps such as the OSM standard
>> Carto, for such things a more specific map would be appropriate and
>> rendering of areas’s is to be preferred above linear elements.  I think the
>> question whether a specific solution renders on standard Carto or not
>> should lead to choosing an otherwise worse solution over one that otherwise
>> is better
>>
>>
>>
>> @Dave Swarthout
>>
>> Would this work for your rendering needs for your canoe in Alaska, for
>> the time being?
>>
>> https://www.openkaart.net/canoe/#map=12/60.6716/-150.5977=rte
>>
>> (early development version of my canoeing map –and now just a translation
>> of my Dutch version geared towards the specific situation here with water
>> only flowing _up_  - please have a few seconds patience, it collects the
>> data from Overpass)
>>
>> When I find the time I will adapt it for more general use outside the
>> Netherlands (possibly with cached data)  and work on the colours etc.
>>
>> I would suggest tagging the footways in the canoeing route with
>> canoe=portage, so they can be easily found (and perhaps also “portage” as
>> “role” in the relation for the highway=* parts  involved)
>>
>> This summer I plan to map a lot of signposted canoe routes and when I
>> have a significant number also kindly ask Waymarked trails if they would be
>> interested in rendering them on their great website.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Linear elements in the lake / lagoon etc*
>>
>> For the linear elements across the lake route=ferry would be very
>> misleading; as I hiker I would expect a boat there to bring me to the other
>> shore (like the nice 3 rowing boat-system in the Scandinavian artic).
>>
>> Route=canoe seems better when you just look at the wiki definition, but
>> in actual use it doesn’t work out that well. First it is actually mainly
>> used as an addition to highway/waterway tags instead of as an alternative.
>>
>> Besides that, using route=* instead of a waterway-tag would have making
>> routers look at different keys for the needed routing information , instead
>> of the different values within the waterway-key.
>>
>> Furthermore using route=* for these 

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Volker Schmidt]

I do not agree with the proposal to use waterway=canal with a new canal=x
tag to indicate a non-existant waterway for canoes.
For the canoe routes, which started the canoe side of this discussion, I
would say that the in-water ways should be tagged as route=canoe without
problems and in concordance with the wiki for the route key "route=x".

I could go along with the extension of the definition of waterway=canal to
cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this solution
is accepted as a result of  voting process on a formal proposal. Personally
I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels.

BTW, the quoted 1800 uses of canal=x are nearly all "canal=fixme", so to
say that "canal=x" is an established way of tagging is misleading.



On 3 July 2018 at 00:02, Multi Modaal  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> New on this mailing list (but not on OSM), so please forgive me if I
> didn't quite understand the old-school interface of this mailing list (-;
>
> It looks like both these threads are strongly interconnected, so I try to
> address them both, as they also refer to the work that I am doing myself
> mapping water areas as wel as waterway networks (for routing and recently
> starting to develop a canoeing map)
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037677.html
>
> Summary:
> I would suggest using [waterway=canal] or [waterway=river] for routable
> lines across bodies of water despite the fact that you normally wouldn’t
> call them as such. This because of common current practice for routable
> networks and other practical reasons.
>
> This is also in line with the description of common practice in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway
> "Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked
> by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a
> replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal. "
>
> But to be able to distinguish normal canals from these routing lines, a
> Wiki for the key [Canal] is just made, where appropriate values can be
> added without messing up routing (such as canal=virtual?).
>
>
> ---
>
> *Rendering*
>
> Despite being a canoeist myself, I think that it's good that canoe routes
> / canal lines are not rendered on general maps such as the OSM standard
> Carto, for such things a more specific map would be appropriate and
> rendering of areas’s is to be preferred above linear elements.  I think the
> question whether a specific solution renders on standard Carto or not
> should lead to choosing an otherwise worse solution over one that otherwise
> is better
>
>
>
> @Dave Swarthout
>
> Would this work for your rendering needs for your canoe in Alaska, for the
> time being?
>
> https://www.openkaart.net/canoe/#map=12/60.6716/-150.5977=rte
>
> (early development version of my canoeing map –and now just a translation
> of my Dutch version geared towards the specific situation here with water
> only flowing _up_  - please have a few seconds patience, it collects the
> data from Overpass)
>
> When I find the time I will adapt it for more general use outside the
> Netherlands (possibly with cached data)  and work on the colours etc.
>
> I would suggest tagging the footways in the canoeing route with
> canoe=portage, so they can be easily found (and perhaps also “portage” as
> “role” in the relation for the highway=* parts  involved)
>
> This summer I plan to map a lot of signposted canoe routes and when I have
> a significant number also kindly ask Waymarked trails if they would be
> interested in rendering them on their great website.
>
>
>
> *Linear elements in the lake / lagoon etc*
>
> For the linear elements across the lake route=ferry would be very
> misleading; as I hiker I would expect a boat there to bring me to the other
> shore (like the nice 3 rowing boat-system in the Scandinavian artic).
>
> Route=canoe seems better when you just look at the wiki definition, but in
> actual use it doesn’t work out that well. First it is actually mainly used
> as an addition to highway/waterway tags instead of as an alternative.
>
> Besides that, using route=* instead of a waterway-tag would have making
> routers look at different keys for the needed routing information , instead
> of the different values within the waterway-key.
>
> Furthermore using route=* for these cases near waterway=* makes life for
> tagging and data consumers unnecessarily difficult with multiple values in
> the same key, for instance when you want to tag that a route=* is for canoe
> and motorboat, but not for sailboat (which is easy on a waterway with a
> separate access-key for each category).
>
> And besides it is confusing between routes on relations (only to be used
> when the route is physically signposted/marked) and on ways (to be used
> when the way itself is not visible).
>
> *which waterway-value?*
>
> Although it might not be 

[Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Multi Modaal]

Dear all,

New on this mailing list (but not on OSM), so please forgive me if I didn't
quite understand the old-school interface of this mailing list (-;

It looks like both these threads are strongly interconnected, so I try to
address them both, as they also refer to the work that I am doing myself
mapping water areas as wel as waterway networks (for routing and recently
starting to develop a canoeing map)

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037677.html

Summary:
I would suggest using [waterway=canal] or [waterway=river] for routable
lines across bodies of water despite the fact that you normally wouldn’t
call them as such. This because of common current practice for routable
networks and other practical reasons.

This is also in line with the description of common practice in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway
"Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked
by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a
replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal. "

But to be able to distinguish normal canals from these routing lines, a
Wiki for the key [Canal] is just made, where appropriate values can be
added without messing up routing (such as canal=virtual?).


---

*Rendering*

Despite being a canoeist myself, I think that it's good that canoe routes /
canal lines are not rendered on general maps such as the OSM standard
Carto, for such things a more specific map would be appropriate and
rendering of areas’s is to be preferred above linear elements.  I think the
question whether a specific solution renders on standard Carto or not
should lead to choosing an otherwise worse solution over one that otherwise
is better



@Dave Swarthout

Would this work for your rendering needs for your canoe in Alaska, for the
time being?

https://www.openkaart.net/canoe/#map=12/60.6716/-150.5977=rte

(early development version of my canoeing map –and now just a translation
of my Dutch version geared towards the specific situation here with water
only flowing _up_  - please have a few seconds patience, it collects the
data from Overpass)

When I find the time I will adapt it for more general use outside the
Netherlands (possibly with cached data)  and work on the colours etc.

I would suggest tagging the footways in the canoeing route with
canoe=portage, so they can be easily found (and perhaps also “portage” as
“role” in the relation for the highway=* parts  involved)

This summer I plan to map a lot of signposted canoe routes and when I have
a significant number also kindly ask Waymarked trails if they would be
interested in rendering them on their great website.



*Linear elements in the lake / lagoon etc*

For the linear elements across the lake route=ferry would be very
misleading; as I hiker I would expect a boat there to bring me to the other
shore (like the nice 3 rowing boat-system in the Scandinavian artic).

Route=canoe seems better when you just look at the wiki definition, but in
actual use it doesn’t work out that well. First it is actually mainly used
as an addition to highway/waterway tags instead of as an alternative.

Besides that, using route=* instead of a waterway-tag would have making
routers look at different keys for the needed routing information , instead
of the different values within the waterway-key.

Furthermore using route=* for these cases near waterway=* makes life for
tagging and data consumers unnecessarily difficult with multiple values in
the same key, for instance when you want to tag that a route=* is for canoe
and motorboat, but not for sailboat (which is easy on a waterway with a
separate access-key for each category).

And besides it is confusing between routes on relations (only to be used
when the route is physically signposted/marked) and on ways (to be used
when the way itself is not visible).

*which waterway-value?*

Although it might not be perfect when you look of the normal definition,
the common practice is that such routable linear elements across bodies of
water are either [waterway=river] or[waterway= canal], depending on the
situation (there are a lot of them in The Netherlands and also elsewhere
where routable networks are made).

This common use is also illustrated in the Wiki for signposted routes [
waterway=fairway] is an _addition_  to  waterway=canal in a lake or a sea
and not a replacement:

“Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked
by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a
replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal.”



And furthermore in a lot of situations the difference between natural and
man_made is really not that clear-cut (nowadays even the top few meters of
the seawater could be argued to be man-made by out CO2-emissions :-)

 When setting something form the ground up we would probably use a third
tag that 

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-07-01 19:07 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> For now, I'm going to tag those untagged ways with route=canoe and then if
> some new development or an alternate tagging scenario presents itself
> later, I'll come back and change it.
>



+1, seems reasonable and the tag is used and documented on the route page.
I am not sure there should be required more tags, making the parts in the
water visible is something the people making the map should address.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

I don't think this route qualifies as a "nautical channel" but insights and
new ideas are always welcome. I don't want to use any whitewater tags here
because I don't think they're appropriate. Someone mentioned not creating a
new type of route but route=canoe was in use before I came along and it
perfectly describes this water and land route.

By the way, for your information bicycles are strictly forbidden to use any
part of this trails system even in winter when the lakes are frozen. Yes,
we have bicyclists who equip their bikes with studded tires and ride the
wilderness trails when they can. I obtained GPS traces from a fellow that
rode a fat-tire bike on the Iditarod Trail, a 1,000 mile trip through the
wilds from Anchorage to Nome, in mid-winter. I added a bicycle=no tag to
the route relation.

For now, I'm going to tag those untagged ways with route=canoe and then if
some new development or an alternate tagging scenario presents itself
later, I'll come back and change it.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:14 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
>
>>
>> This is becoming virtually identical to the discussion re Nautical
>> Channels!
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-July/037728.htm
>> 
>>
> This is no coincidence. I discovered the "nautical channel" issue in the
> Venice lagoon when looking for inspiration. I thought that the canoe routes
> were similar to navigation channels there.
> :-)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Volker Schmidt]

>
>
> This is becoming virtually identical to the discussion re Nautical
> Channels!
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-July/037728.htm
> 
>
This is no coincidence. I discovered the "nautical channel" issue in the
Venice lagoon when looking for inspiration. I thought that the canoe routes
were similar to navigation channels there.
:-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Yves]

Paul,
I have no problem with putting more tags on those ways crossing the lake, 
route=canoe if you like it. 
My peg is round here and we can indeed expand specifically the whitewater page 
to lakes, etc.
Grade 0 is not in the ' International scale of river difficulty' quoted in OSM 
wiki. Our expansion of the difficulty scale obviously apply to still water. 

I also think this allow a consistent tagging for the ways along a route that 
crosses lake and follow rivers. 

Needless to say, if you never paddled there, please don't map it. 
Yves 

Le 30 juin 2018 23:39:47 GMT+02:00, Paul Allen  a écrit :
>On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yves  wrote:
>
>>
>> There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag:
>>
>> whitewater:section_grade=0
>>
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades
>>
>> I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from
>'whitewater'
>> practice, but grade 0 describes a lake perfectly. And if the route
>follows
>> a river with grade 1, then map it as such.
>>
>
>Unless I misunderstand the wiki page, whitewater:section_grade is only
>documented as applying to waterway=river.
>There is nothing there implying it is valid to use it with anything
>other
>than rivers.
>
>Whereas route=* applies to any route which isn't rigidly defined: boat
>travel, aeroplanes, driving across a desert.
>Anywhere you need to join points A and B with a way that is not rigidly
>defined but merely a suggestion.
>
>Yes, you could modify the documentation so whitewater:section_grade
>also
>applies to lakes, oceans and seas but
>then you'd need to emphasise that grades higher than 0 must not be used
>on
>anything other than rivers.  And it
>still doesn't apply to aircraft or driving across a desert or pistes.
>
>You're trying to bash a square peg into a round hole here, and doing so
>when somebody has already handed you a
>round peg of the correct size.
>
>-- 
>Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[osm.tagging]

It might be best to adapt the same language used in the access tag:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

 

Water-based transportation

* access=* (category: any water-based transportation mode)

*  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boat> boat=* (covers small 
boats and pleasure crafts, including yachts)

*  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorboat> motorboat=* 
(boats and yachts using motor, on  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Way>  
also for sailing boats using the motor)

*  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:sailboat=edit=1>
 sailboat=* (boats and yachts using sails, on  
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Way>  doing way with sail, not using the 
motor (according to the definition of the Colreg))

*  <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:canoe> canoe=* (boats 
without sail or motor, such as small dinghies, canoes, kayaks, etc.)

 

So “canoe” is the generic term used for any such small boats, including kayaks.

 

route=canoe seems fine in that case. maybe route=boat if it’s also suitable for 
motorboat or sailboat.

 

 

From: Clifford Snow  
Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2018 08:29
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

 

I'd like to suggest not creating a very specific tag like route=canoe, instead 
use something more general that would apply to more water crafts like kayaks, 
small boats, canoes, and rafts. route=marine_trail would be more fitting. 
Related tag could include motorized=(yes/no). 

 

Kayaking around my area is bigger than canoes with a number of trails in the 
area. 

 

Best,

Clifford

 

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:40 PM Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yves mailto:yve...@mailbox.org> > wrote:

 

There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag:

whitewater:section_grade=0

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades

I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from 'whitewater' 
practice, but grade 0 describes a lake perfectly. And if the route follows a 
river with grade 1, then map it as such.

 

Unless I misunderstand the wiki page, whitewater:section_grade is only 
documented as applying to waterway=river.

There is nothing there implying it is valid to use it with anything other than 
rivers.

Whereas route=* applies to any route which isn't rigidly defined: boat travel, 
aeroplanes, driving across a desert.

Anywhere you need to join points A and B with a way that is not rigidly defined 
but merely a suggestion.

Yes, you could modify the documentation so whitewater:section_grade also 
applies to lakes, oceans and seas but

then you'd need to emphasise that grades higher than 0 must not be used on 
anything other than rivers.  And it

still doesn't apply to aircraft or driving across a desert or pistes.

You're trying to bash a square peg into a round hole here, and doing so when 
somebody has already handed you a

round peg of the correct size.

-- 

Paul

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




 

-- 

@osm_seattle

osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us> 

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

 On 1 July 2018 at 03:22, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> Short of following the route in some as-yet-undescribed manner, I'm aware
> of no way to indicate where one takes the boat out of the water (the
> take-out point) to begin the portage to the next lake. If these various
> take-out/put-in nodes were amenable to separate tagging, e.g., if they were
> named pieces of the route, it would make getting to that place easy.
> However, in this use case they are not named or designated in any way so
> when one is traveling a lake section of the route, the crossing of that
> section would need to be arranged in advance on Basecamp (or some other
> routing-capable software), with those points in order to not to miss them.
>


On 1 July 2018 at 07:15, Yves  wrote:

> There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag:
>
> whitewater:section_grade=0
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades
>
> I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from 'whitewater'
> practice, but grade 0 describes a lake perfectly. And if the route follows
> a river with grade 1, then map it as such.
>

Somebody in my area has marked in some spots as

sport=canoe

whitewater=put_in_out

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-28.1070/153.4494

& Tallebudgera Creek certainly *doesn't* count as white water! :-)

Unfortunately, these points only appear when looking at the map in edit
mode, they don't render in normal view :-(

On 1 July 2018 at 08:29, Clifford Snow  wrote:

> I'd like to suggest not creating a very specific tag like route=canoe,
> instead use something more general that would apply to more water crafts
> like kayaks, small boats, canoes, and rafts. route=marine_trail would be
> more fitting. Related tag could include motorized=(yes/no).
>
> Kayaking around my area is bigger than canoes with a number of trails in
> the area.
>

This is becoming virtually identical to the discussion re Nautical Channels!

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-July/037728.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Clifford Snow]

I'd like to suggest not creating a very specific tag like route=canoe,
instead use something more general that would apply to more water crafts
like kayaks, small boats, canoes, and rafts. route=marine_trail would be
more fitting. Related tag could include motorized=(yes/no).

Kayaking around my area is bigger than canoes with a number of trails in
the area.

Best,
Clifford

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:40 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yves  wrote:
>
>>
>> There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag:
>>
>> whitewater:section_grade=0
>>
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades
>>
>> I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from 'whitewater'
>> practice, but grade 0 describes a lake perfectly. And if the route follows
>> a river with grade 1, then map it as such.
>>
>
> Unless I misunderstand the wiki page, whitewater:section_grade is only
> documented as applying to waterway=river.
> There is nothing there implying it is valid to use it with anything other
> than rivers.
>
> Whereas route=* applies to any route which isn't rigidly defined: boat
> travel, aeroplanes, driving across a desert.
> Anywhere you need to join points A and B with a way that is not rigidly
> defined but merely a suggestion.
>
> Yes, you could modify the documentation so whitewater:section_grade also
> applies to lakes, oceans and seas but
> then you'd need to emphasise that grades higher than 0 must not be used on
> anything other than rivers.  And it
> still doesn't apply to aircraft or driving across a desert or pistes.
>
> You're trying to bash a square peg into a round hole here, and doing so
> when somebody has already handed you a
> round peg of the correct size.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yves  wrote:

>
> There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag:
>
> whitewater:section_grade=0
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades
>
> I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from 'whitewater'
> practice, but grade 0 describes a lake perfectly. And if the route follows
> a river with grade 1, then map it as such.
>

Unless I misunderstand the wiki page, whitewater:section_grade is only
documented as applying to waterway=river.
There is nothing there implying it is valid to use it with anything other
than rivers.

Whereas route=* applies to any route which isn't rigidly defined: boat
travel, aeroplanes, driving across a desert.
Anywhere you need to join points A and B with a way that is not rigidly
defined but merely a suggestion.

Yes, you could modify the documentation so whitewater:section_grade also
applies to lakes, oceans and seas but
then you'd need to emphasise that grades higher than 0 must not be used on
anything other than rivers.  And it
still doesn't apply to aircraft or driving across a desert or pistes.

You're trying to bash a square peg into a round hole here, and doing so
when somebody has already handed you a
round peg of the correct size.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Yves]

There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag:

 whitewater:section_grade=0

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades

I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from 'whitewater' 
practice, but grade 0 describes a lake perfectly. And if the route follows a 
river with grade 1, then map it as such.
Yves 

Le 30 juin 2018 20:49:35 GMT+02:00, Paul Allen  a écrit :
>On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Alan Grant 
>wrote:
>
>>
>> I think there is an analogy with an aspect of hiking trails that I
>have
>> never been sure how to map. Sometimes a waymarked hiking route
>crosses a
>> beach, or follows an ephemeral river bed. There may be no physical
>footway,
>> path, or track across these areas that can be mapped. Following the
>ideas
>> above, maybe a way could be drawn with route=hiking and included in
>the
>> route relation. Has anyone done this or seen it used in the context
>of
>> hiking or other land-based route types?
>>
>
>Again, from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route "routes for
>vehicles when there is no road (e.g., desert)."
>
>Substitute foot for vehicle (both are means of transport) and beach for
>desert (both can be sandy :) ).  It's not big stretch.
>The examples on that web page are just that: examples.  It explicitly
>says
>"If used on ways, route describes a route
>which is not linked to a physical object like streets or rails."
>
>-- 
>Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Alan Grant  wrote:

>
> I think there is an analogy with an aspect of hiking trails that I have
> never been sure how to map. Sometimes a waymarked hiking route crosses a
> beach, or follows an ephemeral river bed. There may be no physical footway,
> path, or track across these areas that can be mapped. Following the ideas
> above, maybe a way could be drawn with route=hiking and included in the
> route relation. Has anyone done this or seen it used in the context of
> hiking or other land-based route types?
>

Again, from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route "routes for
vehicles when there is no road (e.g., desert)."

Substitute foot for vehicle (both are means of transport) and beach for
desert (both can be sandy :) ).  It's not big stretch.
The examples on that web page are just that: examples.  It explicitly says
"If used on ways, route describes a route
which is not linked to a physical object like streets or rails."

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Alan Grant]

I think there is an analogy with an aspect of hiking trails that I have
never been sure how to map. Sometimes a waymarked hiking route crosses a
beach, or follows an ephemeral river bed. There may be no physical footway,
path, or track across these areas that can be mapped. Following the ideas
above, maybe a way could be drawn with route=hiking and included in the
route relation. Has anyone done this or seen it used in the context of
hiking or other land-based route types?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

Thanks, I'll check it out. It helps to know that tagging route=ferry on a
way is the accepted procedure. I see no reason not to treat my
untagged ways in the same manner as per your suggestion.

The bit about rendering isn't critical to my solution as long as the
connectedness of the route is assured and the tagging is correct at the
present time. I mentioned rendering only because those crossings were
invisible without some sort of colored line indicating their presence.

Dave

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:20 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that waterway=river and route=ferry are incorrect and that
>> route=ferry is slightly less so .
>>
>
> If you register your canoe as a merchant vessel and pay yourself for the
> trip, it's a ferry!
>
>>
>> But do you mean the untagged ways should be tagged with route=canoe as
>> someone else suggested, or that the entire relation should be tagged that
>> way?
>>
>
> Both.  Route=ferry is used on ways (and renders).  The individual ways are
> gathered into relations.  Currently
> your route=canoe relation has footpaths and untagged ways.  I think (I
> could be wrong) that it should consist of
> footpaths and ways tagged with route=canoe.
>
> Try it and see what happens.  Probably nothing, but at least it makes a
> little more sense when interpreting the
> relation: "footpath, canoe route, footpath, canoe route" rather than
> "footpath, unknown, footpath, unknown."  If it's
> valid to use route=ferry for ways on open water (it is) then it's almost
> as valid to use route=canoe for ways on open
> water.  Slightly less valid because route=ferry is documented
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route
> but route=canoe is not, however that page says "If used on ways, route
> describes a route which is not linked
> to a physical object like streets or rails. This applies for [...] ships
> on open water [...] airplanes."
>
> So it's valid.  Might not be rendered (yet) but valid.  Or, at the very
> minimum, not obviously wrong.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

>
> I agree that waterway=river and route=ferry are incorrect and that
> route=ferry is slightly less so .
>

If you register your canoe as a merchant vessel and pay yourself for the
trip, it's a ferry!

>
> But do you mean the untagged ways should be tagged with route=canoe as
> someone else suggested, or that the entire relation should be tagged that
> way?
>

Both.  Route=ferry is used on ways (and renders).  The individual ways are
gathered into relations.  Currently
your route=canoe relation has footpaths and untagged ways.  I think (I
could be wrong) that it should consist of
footpaths and ways tagged with route=canoe.

Try it and see what happens.  Probably nothing, but at least it makes a
little more sense when interpreting the
relation: "footpath, canoe route, footpath, canoe route" rather than
"footpath, unknown, footpath, unknown."  If it's
valid to use route=ferry for ways on open water (it is) then it's almost as
valid to use route=canoe for ways on open
water.  Slightly less valid because route=ferry is documented
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route
but route=canoe is not, however that page says "If used on ways, route
describes a route which is not linked
to a physical object like streets or rails. This applies for [...] ships on
open water [...] airplanes."

So it's valid.  Might not be rendered (yet) but valid.  Or, at the very
minimum, not obviously wrong.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

@Paul,
I agree that waterway=river and route=ferry are incorrect and that
route=ferry is slightly less so .

But do you mean the untagged ways should be tagged with route=canoe as
someone else suggested, or that the entire relation should be tagged that
way?

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 9:48 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> A closer look at some similar relations (thanks, Kevin) indicates others
>> have had the same issue and resolved it in various ways. One person left
>> the water-crossing ways untagged, as I did, another used waterway=river to
>> mark them, another used route=ferry (both incorrect for my situation).
>>
>
> Untagged is undesirable.  Could be anything.  Footpath in an area prone to
> heave flooding.  Ley line.  Anything. :)
>
> Waterway=river is just plain wrong.
>
> Route=ferry is also wrong, but not quite as wrong as the others.  It's a
> step in the right direction.  As the old joke goes,
> now we're just haggling over money.
>
> Route=canoe is the right way to go, I think.  It may not render at present
> (I haven't checked) but the carto guys may
> decide to render it at some point in the future.  Factors in the decision
> will be how often it is used and if it serves a
> useful purpose.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> A closer look at some similar relations (thanks, Kevin) indicates others
> have had the same issue and resolved it in various ways. One person left
> the water-crossing ways untagged, as I did, another used waterway=river to
> mark them, another used route=ferry (both incorrect for my situation).
>

Untagged is undesirable.  Could be anything.  Footpath in an area prone to
heave flooding.  Ley line.  Anything. :)

Waterway=river is just plain wrong.

Route=ferry is also wrong, but not quite as wrong as the others.  It's a
step in the right direction.  As the old joke goes,
now we're just haggling over money.

Route=canoe is the right way to go, I think.  It may not render at present
(I haven't checked) but the carto guys may
decide to render it at some point in the future.  Factors in the decision
will be how often it is used and if it serves a
useful purpose.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

A closer look at some similar relations (thanks, Kevin) indicates others
have had the same issue and resolved it in various ways. One person left
the water-crossing ways untagged, as I did, another used waterway=river to
mark them, another used route=ferry (both incorrect for my situation).

Graeme asks:  When people are following the trail & arrive at a lake, would
everybody use the same route across the lake, or would you go straight
across, while I follow right round the shoreline?

It all depends. Sometimes the best route is a straight line, other times
not. You might need to put the canoe in the water and just paddle a short
distance down one shore to the next portage or carry, not crossing the lake
at all. This canoe trail is in a wilderness area where the lake
shorelines are generally heavily wooded and the footways practically
invisible from the water.

Short of following the route in some as-yet-undescribed manner, I'm aware
of no way to indicate where one takes the boat out of the water (the
take-out point) to begin the portage to the next lake. If these various
take-out/put-in nodes were amenable to separate tagging, e.g., if they were
named pieces of the route, it would make getting to that place easy.
However, in this use case they are not named or designated in any way so
when one is traveling a lake section of the route, the crossing of that
section would need to be arranged in advance on Basecamp (or some other
routing-capable software), with those points in order to not to miss them.

In a canoe route that crosses a few lakes in a more or less straight line,
follows some streams, has a few highway=footway portions (portages) and
ends up back where it started, the untagged ways are not a big problem. But
without legitimate and acceptable tagging for its water crossings, I fear
the Swan Lake Canoe Trail will not guide an inexperienced canoeist to those
important take-out points. That's why I'm asking here for best practices.
But maybe my concerns are overblown?

Thanks again for the help. I've got some cleaning up to do along the route.
I need to remove some of the side trips from the route relation and then
test it for completeness with one of the tools mentioned earlier.





On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:19 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:37 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> > When people are following the trail & arrive at a lake, would everybody
> use the same route across the lake, or would you go straight across, while
> I follow right round the shoreline?
> >
> > Assuming different people use different routes, would this effect any
> possible routing?
>
> It depends. Sometimes these ponds are very shallow, and a suggested
> route will be shown to keep in deeper water. Sometimes, it's 'find
> your own way.' In any case, you certainly will stray from the route -
> just try to guide a canoe on a straight line on a windy day! The
> really important thing is 'where do I beach the canoe for the next
> portage?"
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:37 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> When people are following the trail & arrive at a lake, would everybody use 
> the same route across the lake, or would you go straight across, while I 
> follow right round the shoreline?
>
> Assuming different people use different routes, would this effect any 
> possible routing?

It depends. Sometimes these ponds are very shallow, and a suggested
route will be shown to keep in deeper water. Sometimes, it's 'find
your own way.' In any case, you certainly will stray from the route -
just try to guide a canoe on a straight line on a windy day! The
really important thing is 'where do I beach the canoe for the next
portage?"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 30 June 2018 at 02:37, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

>
> I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
> updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
> their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
> actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
> desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
> as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
> for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
> how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
> unsure if such a route will be followable.
>

Dave, I know basically nothing about canoeing so please excuse a probably
dumb question!

When people are following the trail & arrive at a lake, would everybody use
the same route across the lake, or would you go straight across, while I
follow right round the shoreline?

Assuming different people use different routes, would this effect any
possible routing?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:38 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:
> I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
unsure if such a route will be followable. Does anyone know how to test it
for routablity?


I usually just scroll down through the list of members in JOSM's relation
editor and check for continuity (The 'Zoom to Next Gap' function on the
right-click is also useful here.)

I can't run JOSM here at work so I was going to demonstrate continuity
checking using the stand-alone tool at http://ra.osmsurround.org/ - and
using the worked example of the Northville-Placid, I found that it's broken
at the moment: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=4286650 .
(The 'Analyze on Map' button shows exactly where!) I'll try and get that
fixed over the weekend. (I'm also not at all sure how I feel about
replacing surveyed data with a Strava consensus, but I concede that
individual GPS tracks might be wonky. It's not obvious to me that Strava
would be any better on a little-traveled trail like that, though!

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6198495&_noCache=on is
a route=hiking relation that isn't broken.

If you look at either of those relations on hiking.waymarkedtrails.org,
you'll see that they're rendered. The Waymarked Trails site also has the
capability to download individual routs as GPX files. If Lonvia were to add
canoe routes, you'd see them render and be able to download GPX segments as
well.

I suspect that the relation you're concerned with is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3568086 - which, you can see, is all
there in the database.  It's not going to work using the model that
Waymarked Trails uses, because it's not a single route, it's a whole
network. If you were to break it up into individual linear routes, I would
imagine that it would work just fine, and ra.osmsurround.org would handle
them just fine. RIght now
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=3568086&_noCache=on
shows the mess that I'd expect.  Analyzing on the map shows
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=3568086 . There are a lot
of endpoints. For a typical route there will be just two -
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5595974 is pretty typical
of what I'd expect a canoe route to look like, and
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5595974&_noCache=on
likes it.

There probably shouldn't be completely untagged ways. For the portions of
the route that cross open water, I'd probably use route=canoe on the way as
well as the relation, by analogy with route=ferry. Completely untagged ways
introduce fragility, since a way could be shared among more than one route.
(They're appropriate for multipolygon boundaries, and an untagged way that
isn't part of a multipolygon is highly likely to be detritus.)

You could try running https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/zWA to see what others
have done with canoe route relations. (Tracking down the people who edited
them is also a way of finding out who is in that constituency among the
mappers.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

Thanks all for the feedback. I was away all day yesterday so excuse this
late reply.

I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
unsure if such a route will be followable. Does anyone know how to test it
for routablity?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:22 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:42 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> > I've asked this question before on OpenStreetMap Help and mapped the
> route as suggested. (
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/31449/how-do-i-map-a-canoe-route).
> I've mapped the portages where one carries the canoe as highway=footpath
> but the water portions of the route do not show up in OSM or OSMAnd. The
> canoe route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trail. There is a portion of it here (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/60.7101/-150.6839) where one can
> see the footway portions, the portages, but the untagged ways crossing the
> lakes are invisible. The ways are included in my route relation but I'm at
> a loss as to how to tag them so they exist as a part of the route.
> >
> > AFAIK, existing canoe routes use waterway tags to indicate the water
> portions of the routes, e.g., waterway=stream, but the routes I'm working
> on pass through lakes. There is no stream involved, nor is there a footway
> across the lakes.
> >
> > I know I'm raising the specter of tagging for the renderer but if the
> water portions of this route aren't visible or findable, how would a
> routing engine or a GPS make use of them? How should I tag those ways that
> cross the lakes?
>
> I don't know of any specialty map - yet - that does rendering of canoe
> routes. But I'd tag the thing as a route relation, with both waterway=* and
> footway=* segments. route=canoe would make sense, and for many specialty
> maps, it would want to have name, network, and ref. (For ref, for many
> shorter hiking routes, I just use the initials of the trail, and 'lwn'
> [local walking network] for network.
>
> If there's a plan to tag a bunch of these, I bet it would be possible to
> interest Lonvia https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/help/contact in adding
> a 'canoe' mode to Waymarked Trails, which might very well be the easiest
> path to getting rendered, integrated mapping for it. She already has
> 'hiking', 'cycling', 'riding', 'skating' and 'ski' modes, so I can't
> imagine that 'canoe' would be much harder.
>
> If you're unclear on how to construct a route relation, Northville-Placid
> Trail, which I know you're familiar with since we've corresponded about it,
> is built as one and is fairly simple. It couldn't be a single way, both
> because it's too big and because it shares the way with roads or other
> trails at various points.
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=4286650 is the WMT display
> of it (click on the gear at the bottom center of the screen and change the
> base map to Open Topo Map!)  and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 is the corresponding
> display in OSM proper.
>
> If you can't find anyone else interested in rendering it, I could maybe
> have a go. I'd use something like
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=43.2910=-74.3641=12
> (since that rendering already works) as a basemap, and then overlay your
> routes as heavy lines in some sort of bright colour. But I'd really prefer
> to have it hosted somewhere other than my home office!
>
> I don't think anyone's invented a canoe routing engine, and in general,
> the mind boggles at using a routing engine for a backcountry trip: the trip
> planning is part of the fun! Did you have, instead, a navigation system in
> mind? A lot of systems are capable of reducing a route, or a concatenation
> of route segments, down to a single multiline and telling a GPS,' Follow
> this!" That's different from 'try to find me the most efficient (by some
> metric) route from point A to point B."
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:42 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:
> I've asked this question before on OpenStreetMap Help and mapped the
route as suggested. (
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/31449/how-do-i-map-a-canoe-route).
I've mapped the portages where one carries the canoe as highway=footpath
but the water portions of the route do not show up in OSM or OSMAnd. The
canoe route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trail. There is a portion of it here (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/60.7101/-150.6839) where one can see
the footway portions, the portages, but the untagged ways crossing the
lakes are invisible. The ways are included in my route relation but I'm at
a loss as to how to tag them so they exist as a part of the route.
>
> AFAIK, existing canoe routes use waterway tags to indicate the water
portions of the routes, e.g., waterway=stream, but the routes I'm working
on pass through lakes. There is no stream involved, nor is there a footway
across the lakes.
>
> I know I'm raising the specter of tagging for the renderer but if the
water portions of this route aren't visible or findable, how would a
routing engine or a GPS make use of them? How should I tag those ways that
cross the lakes?

I don't know of any specialty map - yet - that does rendering of canoe
routes. But I'd tag the thing as a route relation, with both waterway=* and
footway=* segments. route=canoe would make sense, and for many specialty
maps, it would want to have name, network, and ref. (For ref, for many
shorter hiking routes, I just use the initials of the trail, and 'lwn'
[local walking network] for network.

If there's a plan to tag a bunch of these, I bet it would be possible to
interest Lonvia https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/help/contact in adding a
'canoe' mode to Waymarked Trails, which might very well be the easiest path
to getting rendered, integrated mapping for it. She already has 'hiking',
'cycling', 'riding', 'skating' and 'ski' modes, so I can't imagine that
'canoe' would be much harder.

If you're unclear on how to construct a route relation, Northville-Placid
Trail, which I know you're familiar with since we've corresponded about it,
is built as one and is fairly simple. It couldn't be a single way, both
because it's too big and because it shares the way with roads or other
trails at various points.
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=4286650 is the WMT display of
it (click on the gear at the bottom center of the screen and change the
base map to Open Topo Map!)  and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 is the corresponding display
in OSM proper.

If you can't find anyone else interested in rendering it, I could maybe
have a go. I'd use something like
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=43.2910=-74.3641=12
(since that rendering already works) as a basemap, and then overlay your
routes as heavy lines in some sort of bright colour. But I'd really prefer
to have it hosted somewhere other than my home office!

I don't think anyone's invented a canoe routing engine, and in general, the
mind boggles at using a routing engine for a backcountry trip: the trip
planning is part of the fun! Did you have, instead, a navigation system in
mind? A lot of systems are capable of reducing a route, or a concatenation
of route segments, down to a single multiline and telling a GPS,' Follow
this!" That's different from 'try to find me the most efficient (by some
metric) route from point A to point B."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Yves]

Canoe routes doesn't render because few are mapped, and because few are 
interested in.
Hiking routes and ski pistes are some niche data that get rendered by specialty 
maps.
A specialty map dedicated to this kind of routes could be a nice and not so big 
project as a tile overlay, maybe along with with whitewater tags if you're 
looking for another hobby?
This usually helps in the long run to have more people interested in mapping 
stuff like this.
Yves 

Le 28 juin 2018 18:41:14 GMT+02:00, Dave Swarthout  a 
écrit :
>Hi,
>
>I've asked this question before on OpenStreetMap Help and mapped the
>route
>as suggested. (
>https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/31449/how-do-i-map-a-canoe-route).
>I've mapped the portages where one carries the canoe as
>highway=footpath but the water portions of the route do not show up in
>OSM
>or OSMAnd. The canoe route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trail. There is a
>portion
>of it here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/60.7101/-150.6839)
>where
>one can see the footway portions, the portages, but the untagged ways
>crossing the lakes are invisible. The ways are included in my route
>relation but I'm at a loss as to how to tag them so they exist as a
>part of
>the route.
>
>AFAIK, existing canoe routes use waterway tags to indicate the water
>portions of the routes, e.g., waterway=stream, but the routes I'm
>working on pass through lakes. There is no stream involved, nor is
>there a
>footway across the lakes.
>
>I know I'm raising the specter of tagging for the renderer but if the
>water
>portions of this route aren't visible or findable, how would a routing
>engine or a GPS make use of them? How should I tag those ways that
>cross
>the lakes?
>
>Best,
>
>Dave
>
>-- 
>Dave Swarthout
>Homer, Alaska
>Chiang Mai, Thailand
>Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Clifford Snow]

Dave,
When you add a ferry route, route=ferry to a way it renders.  You might
want to tag the water route as route=canoe then create a relation that
covers the entire route including the water portion and the portaging
sections in the overall route? That the strategy used to map highway routes
that include a route=ferry segment(s).

They still may not render. For that you might need to created a ticket for
the CartoCSS folks at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues.

Clifford
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

Hi,

I've asked this question before on OpenStreetMap Help and mapped the route
as suggested. (
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/31449/how-do-i-map-a-canoe-route).
I've mapped the portages where one carries the canoe as
highway=footpath but the water portions of the route do not show up in OSM
or OSMAnd. The canoe route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trail. There is a portion
of it here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/60.7101/-150.6839) where
one can see the footway portions, the portages, but the untagged ways
crossing the lakes are invisible. The ways are included in my route
relation but I'm at a loss as to how to tag them so they exist as a part of
the route.

AFAIK, existing canoe routes use waterway tags to indicate the water
portions of the routes, e.g., waterway=stream, but the routes I'm
working on pass through lakes. There is no stream involved, nor is there a
footway across the lakes.

I know I'm raising the specter of tagging for the renderer but if the water
portions of this route aren't visible or findable, how would a routing
engine or a GPS make use of them? How should I tag those ways that cross
the lakes?

Best,

Dave

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging