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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> -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: > > [...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tagging] [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

> > > 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 >

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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 raf

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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' >

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

@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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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,

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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).

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

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

[Tagging] Canoe route

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