Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 00:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/6/20 11:12 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for
>> cases
>> like opening hours.
>>
>> Opening_hours provides for free form text.
>>
> I expressed my point unclearly.  It appears from the examples that the
> condition is free-form text.  However, when the condition specifies
> opening hours then those hours should be expressed in the standard
> form for opening_hours.  That opening_hours allows free-form text is
> a digression.  Unless you were seriously suggesting that we
> abuse opening_hours as a way of introducing free-form text into
> a condition even though it appears (to me, at least) that conditions
> permit free-form text anyway.
>
> ? Abuse opening_hours by 'introducing' free form text? It is allowed, so
> not an introduction nor an abuse.
>
Yes, but using opening_hours without giving any times as a way of
fiddling free-form text into a tag would be abusing it, in my opinion.
Especially if there are other ways of doing it.

> I was not aware that condition allowed free form text. Both tags are
> poorly documented for this on the wiki.
>
Indeed.  I had to look through the examples for conditions to convince
myself
that free-form text was allowed.  If it had been just one example I'd have
worried that it had slipped in by mistake, but there are enough of them
to convince me that whoever put them there believed free-form text
was allowed and that nobody objected to those examples.

Do you concur that a conditional such as "(low water)" is permissible?  If
> so, do you agree that it is a better solution than "seasonal" or
> "intermittent"?
>
> Yes, I think so, but the documentation for free form text is not clear. Is
> open_hours better? I don't know.
>
If the bridge were usable at certain specified hours then open_hours would
probably be better.  But there is no fixed time when it is passable.

> Using "seasonal" is unhelpful because low water is possible (if unlikely)
> during all seasons.  Using "intermittent" is somewhat better.
>
> But both "seasonal" and "intermittent" are (currently) only defined as
> applying to water(ish) features themselves, not to things that are under
> those features.  Changes would have to be made to routers to allow
> either seasonal or intermittent to be interpreted correctly when applied
> to ways.  Routers already (I hope) interpret conditionals.
>
>  Some roads are closed in winter but this could be applied as either
> seasonal or conditional depending on the mapper.
>
Usually they are closed during a rainy season.  This bridge isn't always
passable
in the dry season.  Also, engineering work on the damn could mean the level
is low at some other time of year.  From the description in Wikipedia, it
doesn't feel seasonal to me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Warin]

On 10/6/20 11:12 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text
except for cases
like opening hours.


Opening_hours provides for free form text.

I expressed my point unclearly.  It appears from the examples that the
condition is free-form text.  However, when the condition specifies
opening hours then those hours should be expressed in the standard
form for opening_hours.  That opening_hours allows free-form text is
a digression.  Unless you were seriously suggesting that we
abuse opening_hours as a way of introducing free-form text into
a condition even though it appears (to me, at least) that conditions
permit free-form text anyway.


? Abuse opening_hours by 'introducing' free form text? It is allowed, so 
not an introduction nor an abuse.


I was not aware that condition allowed free form text. Both tags are 
poorly documented for this on the wiki.




Do you concur that a conditional such as "(low water)" is permissible?  If
so, do you agree that it is a better solution than "seasonal" or 
"intermittent"?



Yes, I think so, but the documentation for free form text is not clear. 
Is open_hours better? I don't know.




Using "seasonal" is unhelpful because low water is possible (if unlikely)
during all seasons.  Using "intermittent" is somewhat better.

But both "seasonal" and "intermittent" are (currently) only defined as
applying to water(ish) features themselves, not to things that are under
those features.  Changes would have to be made to routers to allow
either seasonal or intermittent to be interpreted correctly when applied
to ways.  Routers already (I hope) interpret conditionals.



 Some roads are closed in winter but this could be applied as either 
seasonal or conditional depending on the mapper.


I think I have tagged some but cannot recall which way I did it.

Would be usefull to do a tag info search for the more popular one and 
then document it on the wiki.


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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 23:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>  Would seasonal=drought work?
>
> I know a drought isn't strictly a season, but it is a climate condition
> that happens regularly.
>

seasonal=drought;maintenance_work

H, I think not. :)

More to the point, persuading routers to check roads for seasonal tags may
be difficult, especially as this bridge may be the only case where something
like this is needed.

Actually, I just thought of another case where something like this is needed
but which cannot be handled by seasonal (even if you count drought as a
season):  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156343450

Conditionals on access seem better all around.  Unless you want to define
high tide as a season.

-- 
Paul


> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 04:24, Cornelis  wrote:

>
> • The bridge does not fall dry every autumn but* only in hot years with
> little rain*, thus in the concrete situation seasonal seems not the best
> tag from my point of view. Intermittent is more strictly bound to water, so
> that won't apply either.
>
> I think I will go with the conditional and a free-form text. In my eyes,
> that accords with the wiki documentation.
>

 Would seasonal=drought work?

I know a drought isn't strictly a season, but it is a climate condition
that happens regularly.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Cornelis  wrote:

>
> • According to the wiki it is not only in use with water(ish) tags. Some
> examples are listed and ice_rink is one of them.
>

Has physics changed that much since I was at school?  Ice is no longer
a form of water?  Must be all that quantum mechanics or dark oojamaflips. :)


> In this wiki entry seasonal is listed as possible tag, too. So seasonal
> could apply here in general.
>

It could, and maybe one day routers will take it into account.  Or maybe
not.

• The bridge does not fall dry every autumn but only in hot years with
> little rain, thus in the concrete situation seasonal seems not the best tag
> from my point of view.
>

Yeah, it's too erratic for seasonal to be a good description, even if it
were
applicable.


> Intermittent is more strictly bound to water, so that won't apply either.
>

The bridge is under water, but the bridge itself is not intermittent.  The
route
over the bridge is intermittent, but it's not a water route.

>
> I think I will go with the conditional and a free-form text. In my eyes,
> that accords with the wiki documentation.
>

I think it's the best option.  And works reasonably well with any router
that
handles conditionals even if it doesn't understand the condition: by default
you cannot get from A to B by crossing the bridge.

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Cornelis]

I agree with you, Paul and would like to add two thoughts regarding the
use of seasonal:

• According to the wiki it is not only in use with water(ish) tags. Some
examples are listed and ice_rink is one of them. In this wiki entry
seasonal is listed as possible tag, too. So seasonal could apply here in
general.
• The bridge does not fall dry every autumn but only in hot years with
little rain, thus in the concrete situation seasonal seems not the best
tag from my point of view. Intermittent is more strictly bound to water,
so that won't apply either.

I think I will go with the conditional and a free-form text. In my eyes,
that accords with the wiki documentation.

Cornelis

Am 10.06.20 um 15:12 schrieb Paul Allen:

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:

On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text
except for cases
like opening hours.


Opening_hours provides for free form text.

I expressed my point unclearly.  It appears from the examples that the
condition is free-form text.  However, when the condition specifies
opening hours then those hours should be expressed in the standard
form for opening_hours.  That opening_hours allows free-form text is
a digression.  Unless you were seriously suggesting that we
abuse opening_hours as a way of introducing free-form text into
a condition even though it appears (to me, at least) that conditions
permit free-form text anyway.

Do you concur that a conditional such as "(low water)" is permissible?  If
so, do you agree that it is a better solution than "seasonal" or
"intermittent"?
Using "seasonal" is unhelpful because low water is possible (if unlikely)
during all seasons.  Using "intermittent" is somewhat better.

But both "seasonal" and "intermittent" are (currently) only defined as
applying to water(ish) features themselves, not to things that are under
those features.  Changes would have to be made to routers to allow
either seasonal or intermittent to be interpreted correctly when applied
to ways.  Routers already (I hope) interpret conditionals.

--
Paul


___
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] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for
> cases
> like opening hours.
>
> Opening_hours provides for free form text.
>
I expressed my point unclearly.  It appears from the examples that the
condition is free-form text.  However, when the condition specifies
opening hours then those hours should be expressed in the standard
form for opening_hours.  That opening_hours allows free-form text is
a digression.  Unless you were seriously suggesting that we
abuse opening_hours as a way of introducing free-form text into
a condition even though it appears (to me, at least) that conditions
permit free-form text anyway.

Do you concur that a conditional such as "(low water)" is permissible?  If
so, do you agree that it is a better solution than "seasonal" or
"intermittent"?
Using "seasonal" is unhelpful because low water is possible (if unlikely)
during all seasons.  Using "intermittent" is somewhat better.

But both "seasonal" and "intermittent" are (currently) only defined as
applying to water(ish) features themselves, not to things that are under
those features.  Changes would have to be made to routers to allow
either seasonal or intermittent to be interpreted correctly when applied
to ways.  Routers already (I hope) interpret conditionals.

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Warin]

On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the
specification of :conditional as per the wiki.


From 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_time_and_other_conditional_restrictions


    For a full description and more examples, please see the 
conditional restrictions page.


The page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
isn't as clear as it could be in defining the syntax.  I went by these 
examples:


Road condition: For example, *wet*, *snow*. It is noted that the 
condition *wet* corresponds to *:wet* in e.g. maxspeed:wet 
=*. 
Using *wet* as a condition is recommended in order to streamline the 
syntax of restriction tags ("maxspeed:wet" was introduced at a time 
when no proper way of tagging conditional restrictions existed).


User group: The restriction relates to a specific user group, e.g. 
doctor, disabled, emergency, female.


From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for 
cases

like opening hours.



Opening_hours provides for free form text.


From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours#Summary_syntax


*comment:* |"|text|"|

   A short comment (wrapped in |"| but not containing any |"| within)
   showing applicable restrictions or specifications, e.g. |"children
   only"|, |"limited service"|, or |"reservation by phone"|.
   This comment is intended to be displayed in applications and not to
   be interpreted automatically.



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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the
> specification of :conditional as per the wiki.
>

From
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_time_and_other_conditional_restrictions

For a full description and more examples, please see the conditional
restrictions page.

The page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
isn't as clear as it could be in defining the syntax.  I went by these
examples:

Road condition: For example, *wet*, *snow*. It is noted that the condition
*wet* corresponds to *:wet* in e.g. maxspeed:wet

=*. Using *wet* as a condition is recommended in order to streamline the
syntax of restriction tags ("maxspeed:wet" was introduced at a time when no
proper way of tagging conditional restrictions existed).

User group: The restriction relates to a specific user group, e.g. doctor,
disabled, emergency, female.

>From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for cases
like opening hours.

-- 
Paul


Is there anything to say :conditional will accept text entries
> and those are be used by any render?
>

I've not done any digging.  Are you aware of any conditional applying to any
tag which affects the rendering?  As far as I can see, the standard map
renders as though the condition were not met.  How would you expect the
renderer to show it?  The only options are show it as condition not met;
show it as condition met; and show it in some weird hybrid form (which
would have to be specifically coded for most possible hybrids).

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Warin]

On 9/6/20 1:10 pm, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

 access=no
 access:conditional=yes @ (above water)

Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to 
use opening hours?
opening_hours= "above water" ???

:conditional is widely used for mapping:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=conditional



But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the specification of 
:conditional as per the wiki.
Is there anything to say :conditional will accept text entries and 
those are be used by any render?
The key opening_hours does accept text based entries as per the wiki. I think 
some renders do accept the text entries?


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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
>> access=no
>> access:conditional=yes @ (above water)
>
> Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to 
> use opening hours?
> opening_hours= "above water" ???

:conditional is widely used for mapping:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=conditional

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Warin]

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis > wrote:



With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey
as normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls
dry roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may
be resolved with correct/additional tags? After reading the
discussion I think at least three tags should be added:

Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a
conflict with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?


They are not mutually exclusive.  If it is a tourist attraction then 
it could

also have tourism=attraction.

• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far
as i can tell after reading the wiki article.
• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for
other things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?


Neither seem appropriate to me.  However, what you should have is 
access=no
to prevent routers from including it in walking routes. What you could 
do, to

show it is occasionally usable (if it is), is something like:

    access=no
    access:conditional=yes @ (above water)



I would keep seasonal but make it more specific

seasonal=autumn

Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be 
better to use opening hours?


opening_hours= "above water" ???


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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis  wrote:

>
> With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as
> normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry roughly
> every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved with
> correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at least
> three tags should be added:
>
> Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
> • historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
> with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
>

They are not mutually exclusive.  If it is a tourist attraction then it
could
also have tourism=attraction.

• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i can
> tell after reading the wiki article.
> • seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
> things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?
>

Neither seem appropriate to me.  However, what you should have is access=no
to prevent routers from including it in walking routes.  What you could do,
to
show it is occasionally usable (if it is), is something like:

access=no
access:conditional=yes @ (above water)

I may not have the correct syntax there.  If so, somebody will be along to
correct me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

>Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:31:20 +0200
>From: Cornelis 
>To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)
>Message-ID: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

>This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this bridge
>and wondered if it can be tagged in a more appropriate way:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.18387/8.95239

>Currently it is tagged like that (shortened):
>historic=bridge
>intermittent=yes
>layer=-1
>man_made=bridge
>name=Aseler Brücke
>seasonal=yes
>tourism=attraction

>With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treated as
>normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, although it only falls dry
>roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved
>with correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at
>least three tags should be added:

>building=bridge
>abandoned=yes
>location=underwater

>Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
>• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
>with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
>• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i
>can tell after reading the wiki article.
>• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
>things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?

>Regards
>Cornelis

Have you considered "flood_prone=yes" (14700 uses in taginfo), although I guess 
that is more used for places that are normally dry and only occasionally wet?
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Cornelis]

This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this bridge
and wondered if it can be tagged in a more appropriate way:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.18387/8.95239

Currently it is tagged like that (shortened):
historic=bridge
intermittent=yes
layer=-1
man_made=bridge
name=Aseler Brücke
seasonal=yes
tourism=attraction

With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as
normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry
roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved
with correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at
least three tags should be added:

building=bridge
abandoned=yes
location=underwater

Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i
can tell after reading the wiki article.
• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?

Regards
Cornelis

Am 06.06.20 um 12:47 schrieb Paul Allen:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana . mailto:lanxa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions
(buildings, bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs.
Although they generally remain underwater, but in times of
drought, when the reservoir level drops low enough, they can be
visited on foot.  Like this [1]

On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or
whatever corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature,

The wiki page on historic features says that historic=* is to identify
features
of historic interest.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic
The key historic=* is not a synonym for old=*. Admittedly, the page also
says it is somewhat subjective as to what is of historic interest, but
it gives
several criteria which I do not think are satisfied here.

Nor is historic=ruins really appropriate.  Some of the buildings may
be intact.
And they're not really of historic interest.  The ruins of St Dogmaels
Abbey
qualify as historic=ruins.  See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Dogmaels_Abbey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_309701.jpg

A better way of handling non-historic ruins, is to use ruins=yes or
namespace the key, such as ruins:building=house.  There has been
much debate on this list as to which of those two is correct and if one is
preferred over the other in certain circumstances.  All I'll point out
is that with some renderers ruins:building=house does not render
but with ruins=yes it does.

If the building is not in ruins but has been abandoned (by virtue of being
underwater most of the time, then abandoned:building=house or
abandoned=yes.

it’s in ruins and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that
it’s underwater partially or totally and its access is
occasionally possible, when the water drops?

location=underwater accounts for normal state.  You could possibly use a
conditional to indicate occasional visibility but it's probably not
worth it.  Especially
as most of the rare times it's uncovered it will only be partially
uncovered to a
greater or lesser extent.  A note or description on the body of water
is probably
the way to handle it: "During times of low water some buildings may be
visible."

I find these tags, but none convinces me:

Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements

Specifically for vessels.  "Wreck" as in "shipwreck."

Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
beneath”, it isn’t the case…

But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which
does not
say "installed."  I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you
found
because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
POIs.  Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
"installed."

So building=whatever + ruins=yes + location=underwater or
ruins:building=whatever + location=underwater.

--
Paul


___
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] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 6. Jun 2020, at 11:22, Lanxana .  wrote:

But how to indicate that it’s underwater partially or totally and its
access is occasionally possible, when the water drops?



an area with natural=water around it?


I find these tags, but none convinces me:...

Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
beneath”, it isn’t the case…


the definition doesn't seem suitable. Why shouldn't an underwater thing
extend into the ground? The relevant part is "inside a water body / under
water surface", but there shouldn't be requirements to not extend
below/inside the floor


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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Richard]

On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:47:23AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana .  wrote:
> 
> > Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
> > description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
> > beneath”, it isn’t the case…
> >
> But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which does not
> say "installed."  I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you found
> because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
> language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
> POIs.  Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
> word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
> "installed."

the description in Key:location has been there since 2012 while the other page 
was created 2019.. changed location=underwater.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana .  wrote:

We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions (buildings,
> bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs. Although they generally
> remain underwater, but in times of drought, when the reservoir level drops
> low enough, they can be visited on foot.  Like this [1]
>
> On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or whatever
> corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature,
>
The wiki page on historic features says that historic=* is to identify
features
of historic interest.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic
The key historic=* is not a synonym for old=*.  Admittedly, the page also
says it is somewhat subjective as to what is of historic interest, but it
gives
several criteria which I do not think are satisfied here.

Nor is historic=ruins really appropriate.  Some of the buildings may be
intact.
And they're not really of historic interest.  The ruins of St Dogmaels Abbey
qualify as historic=ruins.  See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Dogmaels_Abbey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_309701.jpg

A better way of handling non-historic ruins, is to use ruins=yes or
namespace the key, such as ruins:building=house.  There has been
much debate on this list as to which of those two is correct and if one is
preferred over the other in certain circumstances.  All I'll point out
is that with some renderers ruins:building=house does not render
but with ruins=yes it does.

If the building is not in ruins but has been abandoned (by virtue of being
underwater most of the time, then abandoned:building=house or
abandoned=yes.


> it’s in ruins and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that it’s
> underwater partially or totally and its access is occasionally possible,
> when the water drops?
>
location=underwater accounts for normal state.  You could possibly use a
conditional to indicate occasional visibility but it's probably not worth
it.  Especially
as most of the rare times it's uncovered it will only be partially
uncovered to a
greater or lesser extent.  A note or description on the body of water is
probably
the way to handle it: "During times of low water some buildings may be
visible."


> I find these tags, but none convinces me:
>
> Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements
>
Specifically for vessels.  "Wreck" as in "shipwreck."


> Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
> description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
> beneath”, it isn’t the case…
>
But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which does not
say "installed."  I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you found
because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
POIs.  Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
"installed."

So building=whatever + ruins=yes + location=underwater or
ruins:building=whatever + location=underwater.

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

[Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Lanxana .]

Hi everyone!

We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions (buildings,
bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs. Although they generally
remain underwater, but in times of drought, when the reservoir level drops
low enough, they can be visited on foot.  Like this [1]

On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or whatever
corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature, it’s in ruins
and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that it’s underwater
partially or totally and its access is occasionally possible, when the
water drops?

I find these tags, but none convinces me:

Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements

Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
beneath”, it isn’t the case…

Flood_prone=yes [4] -> advices from a hazard, it isn’t the case…

Is there any more that I haven’t seen?

Thanks!

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_of_Sant_Rom%C3%A0#/media/File:Esgl%C3%A9sia_de_Sant_Rom%C3%A0_de_Sau.jpg

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dwreck

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:location%3Dunderwater

[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_prone
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging