Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
> > On 18/07/2016 08:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> why "seamark:*"? >> > > This is historical. At the beginning of nautical navigation mapping, it > was buoys, beacons, lights, etc that were being mapped. In effect, it can be seen as "features that should appear on a nautical map". A seamap rendered output will emphasize, or mostly use, seamark features. The convention for seamark is to dual tag when the feature has both a seamark and a mainline osm tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
I think the general concencus is that waterway=fairway is a useful tag. I'll just add it to the wiki so people will know about it. I'm also going to change the waterway=lake to waterway=fairway where I come across it and think it should be changed. Regards, Maarten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
Hi Maarten, > I'm seeing some ways tagged with waterway=fairway in the Netherlands. I did this to mark fairways on lakes in simple way and to draw a navigable inland watrways network. These waterways should also have tags like motorboat=yes or CEMT=* to classify. Results can be seen on http://maps.grade.de and http://routino.grade.de > This user also added waterway=lake on unclosed ways. Must have been a mistake if tagged by me Have a nice day, Dirk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
2016-07-18 11:16 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces >> > > Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & > cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it > should be only to indicate additional navigational information. you do it for some features, but not for others. e.g. "landmarks", http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_E e.g. seamark:type=landmark seamark:landmark:category=tower wouldn't this be better represented as man_made=tower, landmark=tower (or yes)? similarly, all the contained objects in landmark already have their corresponding tagging (or should get it): seamark:type=landmark seamark:landmark:category=monument (or seamark:landmark:category=column) (or seamark:landmark:category=obelisk) (or seamark:landmark:category=statue) Monument, column, pillar, obelisk, statue ... Also in this section, there is a draft which seems that someone wants to add more information in the future (empty tables), where my suggestion would be to either add a short sentence why there is no information, or whether you plan to add more (or encourage people to add it) or to remove these paragraphs (with currently no information, and where "normal" tags are there or should be invented, like "public buildings", port infrastructure, etc.): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_F And a lot of features from here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_U seamark:type=harbour seamark:harbour:category=marina (doesn't seem to add anything compared to leisure=marina) seamark:type=small_craft_facility seamark:small_craft_facility:category=restaurant (or is this for restaurants that can only be accessed with small water craft and not e.g. by pedestrians?) seamark:type=small_craft_facility seamark:small_craft_facility:category=telephone cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it should be only to indicate additional navigational information. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
2016-07-18 10:26 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it. I'm not sure we are stuck with it. Like other ill-fitting tag names we should try to fix it. A very small change and replacing "rk" with "p" would already be an improvement ("seamap:*"), but on a more general note I think that everything that isn't only occuring in seamap contest should likely get a "normal" tag (e.g. "rock", bridge, ...) in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
On 18/07/2016 08:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: why "seamark:*"? This is historical. At the beginning of nautical navigation mapping, it was buoys, beacons, lights, etc that were being mapped. As is usual with OSM mapping, feature creep set in to include all objects listed in the IHO catalogue. In retrospect, a broader term than "seamark" would have been better, but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
2016-07-18 9:44 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will > do. I know this has been discussed before, but as the issue persists, I'm mentioning it again: why "seamark:*"? Are there any plans to transition from "seamark:*" to different tag names that are more descriptive, for things that aren't "seamarks"? If I read a tag "seamark:type" I would expect this to describe a seamark, not a nautical channel. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
On 18/07/2016 07:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: but they for sure must have same tags for that. Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
How are nautical channels ("fairways") tagged of OpenSeaMap. I could not find out at first glance, but they for sure must have same tags for that. On 17 July 2016 at 19:29, Maarten Deen wrote: > I'm seeing some ways tagged with waterway=fairway in the Netherlands. Some > examples: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215071961 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210382535 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215071958 > > These examples have all been added in > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15581966, there are more examples > in the changeset. > > Taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=waterway&value=fairway > > This user also added waterway=lake on unclosed ways. > > Both waterway=fairway and waterway=lake are not described in the wiki. I > do get the idea of waterway=fairway. This user seems to have added this in > lakes to indicate the navigatable route. Since these lakes are shallow, > there are predeterminded routes marked by buoys. So it makes sense. > The waterway=lake I don't get. > > What is the thought on this. Is this something to keep or should these > routes be tagged as waterway=canal? These are not canals, so I do see the > added value of using a different tag. Is fairway an acceptable one? Fairway > does seem to be the english term for this feature. > Should this be up for for vote as a proposed feature of should we just add > it to the waterway wikipage? > > Regards, > Maarten > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging