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

[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