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 waterway=stream or waterway=river aren't suitable for routing purposes? All the best François 2018-07-03 0:37 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > 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 concordance with the wiki for the route key "route=x". > > 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. > > 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. > > > > On 3 July 2018 at 00:02, Multi Modaal wrote: > >> 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 myself >> mapping water areas as wel as waterway networks (for routing and recently >> starting to develop a canoeing map) >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037677.html >> >> 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 >> networks and other practical reasons. >> >> This is also in line with the description of common practice in >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway >> "Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked >> by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a >> replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal. " >> >> But to be able to distinguish normal canals from these routing lines, a >> Wiki for the key [Canal] is just made, where appropriate values can be >> added without messing up routing (such as canal=virtual?). >> >> >> --- >> >> *Rendering* >> >> Despite being a canoeist myself, I think that it's good that canoe routes >> / canal lines are not rendered on general maps such as the OSM standard >> Carto, for such things a more specific map would be appropriate and >> rendering of areas’s is to be preferred above linear elements. I think the >> question whether a specific solution renders on standard Carto or not >> should lead to choosing an otherwise worse solution over one that otherwise >> is better >> >> >> >> @Dave Swarthout >> >> Would this work for your rendering needs for your canoe in Alaska, for >> the time being? >> >> https://www.openkaart.net/canoe/#map=12/60.6716/-150.5977=rte >> >> (early development version of my canoeing map –and now just a translation >> of my Dutch version geared towards the specific situation here with water >> only flowing _up_ - please have a few seconds patience, it collects the >> data from Overpass) >> >> When I find the time I will adapt it for more general use outside the >> Netherlands (possibly with cached data) and work on the colours etc. >> >> I would suggest tagging the footways in the canoeing route with >> canoe=portage, so they can be easily found (and perhaps also “portage” as >> “role” in the relation for the highway=* parts involved) >> >> This summer I plan to map a lot of signposted canoe routes and when I >> have a significant number also kindly ask Waymarked trails if they would be >> interested in rendering them on their great website. >> >> >> >> *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 actual use it doesn’t work out that well. First it is actually mainly >> used as an addition to highway/waterway tags instead of as an alternative. >> >> Besides that, using route=* instead of a waterway-tag would have making >> routers look at different keys for the needed routing information , instead >> of the different values within the waterway-key. >> >> Furthermore using route=* for these
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 concordance with the wiki for the route key "route=x". 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. 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. On 3 July 2018 at 00:02, Multi Modaal wrote: > 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 myself > mapping water areas as wel as waterway networks (for routing and recently > starting to develop a canoeing map) > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037677.html > > 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 > networks and other practical reasons. > > This is also in line with the description of common practice in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway > "Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked > by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a > replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal. " > > But to be able to distinguish normal canals from these routing lines, a > Wiki for the key [Canal] is just made, where appropriate values can be > added without messing up routing (such as canal=virtual?). > > > --- > > *Rendering* > > Despite being a canoeist myself, I think that it's good that canoe routes > / canal lines are not rendered on general maps such as the OSM standard > Carto, for such things a more specific map would be appropriate and > rendering of areas’s is to be preferred above linear elements. I think the > question whether a specific solution renders on standard Carto or not > should lead to choosing an otherwise worse solution over one that otherwise > is better > > > > @Dave Swarthout > > Would this work for your rendering needs for your canoe in Alaska, for the > time being? > > https://www.openkaart.net/canoe/#map=12/60.6716/-150.5977=rte > > (early development version of my canoeing map –and now just a translation > of my Dutch version geared towards the specific situation here with water > only flowing _up_ - please have a few seconds patience, it collects the > data from Overpass) > > When I find the time I will adapt it for more general use outside the > Netherlands (possibly with cached data) and work on the colours etc. > > I would suggest tagging the footways in the canoeing route with > canoe=portage, so they can be easily found (and perhaps also “portage” as > “role” in the relation for the highway=* parts involved) > > This summer I plan to map a lot of signposted canoe routes and when I have > a significant number also kindly ask Waymarked trails if they would be > interested in rendering them on their great website. > > > > *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 > actual use it doesn’t work out that well. First it is actually mainly used > as an addition to highway/waterway tags instead of as an alternative. > > Besides that, using route=* instead of a waterway-tag would have making > routers look at different keys for the needed routing information , instead > of the different values within the waterway-key. > > Furthermore using route=* for these cases near waterway=* makes life for > tagging and data consumers unnecessarily difficult with multiple values in > the same key, for instance when you want to tag that a route=* is for canoe > and motorboat, but not for sailboat (which is easy on a waterway with a > separate access-key for each category). > > And besides it is confusing between routes on relations (only to be used > when the route is physically signposted/marked) and on ways (to be used > when the way itself is not visible). > > *which waterway-value?* > > Although it might not be
[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 myself mapping water areas as wel as waterway networks (for routing and recently starting to develop a canoeing map) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037679.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037677.html 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 networks and other practical reasons. This is also in line with the description of common practice in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dfairway "Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal. " But to be able to distinguish normal canals from these routing lines, a Wiki for the key [Canal] is just made, where appropriate values can be added without messing up routing (such as canal=virtual?). --- *Rendering* Despite being a canoeist myself, I think that it's good that canoe routes / canal lines are not rendered on general maps such as the OSM standard Carto, for such things a more specific map would be appropriate and rendering of areas’s is to be preferred above linear elements. I think the question whether a specific solution renders on standard Carto or not should lead to choosing an otherwise worse solution over one that otherwise is better @Dave Swarthout Would this work for your rendering needs for your canoe in Alaska, for the time being? https://www.openkaart.net/canoe/#map=12/60.6716/-150.5977=rte (early development version of my canoeing map –and now just a translation of my Dutch version geared towards the specific situation here with water only flowing _up_ - please have a few seconds patience, it collects the data from Overpass) When I find the time I will adapt it for more general use outside the Netherlands (possibly with cached data) and work on the colours etc. I would suggest tagging the footways in the canoeing route with canoe=portage, so they can be easily found (and perhaps also “portage” as “role” in the relation for the highway=* parts involved) This summer I plan to map a lot of signposted canoe routes and when I have a significant number also kindly ask Waymarked trails if they would be interested in rendering them on their great website. *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 actual use it doesn’t work out that well. First it is actually mainly used as an addition to highway/waterway tags instead of as an alternative. Besides that, using route=* instead of a waterway-tag would have making routers look at different keys for the needed routing information , instead of the different values within the waterway-key. Furthermore using route=* for these cases near waterway=* makes life for tagging and data consumers unnecessarily difficult with multiple values in the same key, for instance when you want to tag that a route=* is for canoe and motorboat, but not for sailboat (which is easy on a waterway with a separate access-key for each category). And besides it is confusing between routes on relations (only to be used when the route is physically signposted/marked) and on ways (to be used when the way itself is not visible). *which waterway-value?* Although it might not be perfect when you look of the normal definition, the common practice is that such routable linear elements across bodies of water are either [waterway=river] or[waterway= canal], depending on the situation (there are a lot of them in The Netherlands and also elsewhere where routable networks are made). This common use is also illustrated in the Wiki for signposted routes [ waterway=fairway] is an _addition_ to waterway=canal in a lake or a sea and not a replacement: “Use waterway=fairway for the artificially created navigable route marked by buoys in large waterbodies like a lake or a sea. Do not use it as a replacement for waterway=river or waterway=canal.” And furthermore in a lot of situations the difference between natural and man_made is really not that clear-cut (nowadays even the top few meters of the seawater could be argued to be man-made by out CO2-emissions :-) When setting something form the ground up we would probably use a third tag that
[Tagging] Waterways in Venice Re: nautical channels
2018-07-01 18:56 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > The lagoon "canals" are connected to both rivers and the city "canals" in > the sense that the lagoon "canals" are often the continuation of rivers or > city "canals". > Two Examples: > >- Fiume (River) Dese (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27658040) and >Canale Dese (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398995928) > > do you agree this "canal" does not meet the requirements for waterway=canal? > >- Rio dei Giardini (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171899879) is a >single way that is part canal and part nautical channel. > > probably the same, less sure, but the shape indicates natural origin. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 the route page. I am not sure there should be required more tags, making the parts in the water visible is something the people making the map should address. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations
2018-07-02 1:53 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > As for the function? No idea what the military are targeting there, the > forestry probably decontamination=pathogen. > > "pathogen" is too generic, it means anything that can make an organism ill. I would expect any kind of decontamination to be against things that make ill. Maybe distinguish between chemical and biological decontamination (maybe even nuclear?), i.e. according to the kind of contamination to remove? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
