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

[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