Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 17:05, Steve Doerr  wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>
> I would interpret 'Collects', 'Issues', 'Spreads', and possibly 'Sinks' as
>> verbs in the third person singular, rather than plural nouns.
>>
>
> That's a bit of an issue, although I think you've included the kitchen
> sink.
>
> Kitchen sinks are more of an indoor tagging thing. :-P


> It is not unknown in English for verbs to get nouned and nouns to get
> verbed.
> Especially in technical English like mapology.
>
> This might affect how we tag them, as we mainly use nouns and adjectives,
>> I think.
>>
>
> As used by OS, these are nouns.  If we had non-cartographic equivalents in
> British English then maybe we should use those instead.  If we decide that
> we want to tag such things in the first place.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> If we decide that
> we want to tag such things in the first place.


as there was significant discussion how to tag them, it doesn’t seem that not 
mapping them is an option we still have to discuss 


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 17:05, Steve Doerr  wrote:

> On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
I would interpret 'Collects', 'Issues', 'Spreads', and possibly 'Sinks' as
> verbs in the third person singular, rather than plural nouns.
>

That's a bit of an issue, although I think you've included the kitchen sink.

It is not unknown in English for verbs to get nouned and nouns to get
verbed.
Especially in technical English like mapology.

This might affect how we tag them, as we mainly use nouns and adjectives, I
> think.
>

As used by OS, these are nouns.  If we had non-cartographic equivalents in
British English then maybe we should use those instead.  If we decide that
we want to tag such things in the first place.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Steve Doerr]

On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote:

e source of a river is defined by one of the following terms:
Collects- where the source is a bog or a marsh
Spring- where the source is a natural spring
Issues- where the source is an emission from an agricultural drain, or 
where the streamre-emerges from underground


Where a river disappears underground the point will be described Sinks.
Where a river spreads on a sand or shingle beach, or in a marsh, it 
will be described Spreads


I would interpret 'Collects', 'Issues', 'Spreads', and possibly 'Sinks' 
as verbs in the third person singular, rather than plural nouns. This 
might affect how we tag them, as we mainly use nouns and adjectives, I 
think.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 02:36, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> One question I have on this is how much are the OS maps tailored to the UK
> environment?
>

The OS maps of the UK are very much tailored to the UK environment.  I
don't know if they are, or ever were, responsible for mapping portions of
the British Empire and possessions.

I’ve only been to the UK a couple of times but my impression is there isn’t
> much arid or even semi-arid land there to be mapped.
>

Not much.  Not any, that I can think of (but I don't know the entire UK in
great
detail).  That just means that we cannot look to Ordnance Survey for clues
as
to what tagging might be useful for arid areas.  It can still provide clues
for
what we might find useful when mapping terrain that is wet, cold, and full
of
sheep. :)  There is no point re-inventing the wheel, but we shouldn't assume
that other people's wheels are perfect.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 6:23 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen  > wrote:
> 
> I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions.  I'm not saying
> we should automatically do what they do.  But I do think we ought to consider
> what they've done and think about it before committing ourselves.
> 
> "Maybe" (as OSM is British English based) we should be doing exactly that?
> 

One question I have on this is how much are the OS maps tailored to the UK 
environment? I’ve only been to the UK a couple of times but my impression is 
there isn’t much arid or even semi-arid land there to be mapped.

—Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions.  I'm not saying
> we should automatically do what they do.  But I do think we ought to
> consider
> what they've done and think about it before committing ourselves.
>

"Maybe" (as OSM is British English based) we should be doing exactly that?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:42, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be
> mapped as natural=spring
>

Ordnance Survey makes the distinction between issues and springs.  An issue
is where a waterway reappears after a (natural, not a culvert) journey
underground.
A spring is, as far as I can tell, a result of rainfall percolating into
the ground rather
than the reappearance of a waterway that disappeared elsewhere.

Ordnance Survey also makes the distinction between springs and wells (as in
upwellings of water, I think, not as in holes somebody dug and dips a bucket
into) but I have yet to find out what that distinction is.

I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions.  I'm not saying
we should automatically do what they do.  But I do think we ought to
consider
what they've done and think about it before committing ourselves.  Maybe see
what other national mapping agencies like USGS do.  If they do it, it's
probably for a reason (although it may be a bad one).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be
mapped as natural=spring

If there is also a cave entrance at the same spot where the watercourse
exits a cave, then the tag natural=cave_entrance can be used

- Joseph

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:21 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:08 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation,
>>> look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa.  It looks like
>>> someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but
>>> forgot to add the water.
>>>
>>
>> As I understand it (possibly not all that well) a sinkhole as the wiki
>> defines it
>> is a large hole in the ground which water enters and vanishes without
>> pooling.
>> What Ordnance Survey calls "sinks" appears to be more akin to a hole in a
>> golf
>> course that water enters and vanishes.  What Ordnance Survey calls
>> "spreads"
>> is a sand or soil or gravel surface that water vanishes into without
>> pooling and without there being any noticeable hole.
>>
>
> The WIki picture of a sinkhole happens to be large, but in karst terrain
> they come in all sizes. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737 is
> a sinkhole of quite a small stream. I couldn't find a good way to tag the
> rise a short distance to the west.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226924460 is a much larger sinkhole. In
> a wet season there's significant outflow to the east, but in a dry season
> all of the outflow from the lake runs through the caves, exiting through
> cracks in the limestone below the cliffs to the east. Many of the small
> streams thus formed haven't been mapped because there are significant
> technical challenges to mapping them. GPS coverage at the cliff bases is so
> poor that one would probably have to resort to alidade and plane table, and
> the evergreen cover is dense enough that you can't see much that's useful
> on satellite imagery.
>
> I'm not sure if any of those fit what you have and maybe what you have is
>> more of a network of intermittent streams.
>>
>
> What Mark is showing is usually called an alluvial fan.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan
> Some fans have well-defined (perennial or intermittent) distributary
> streams flowing through them. Often, though, most of the stream channels
> are ephemeral in nature. Sometimes an individual channel was cut in a
> matter of hours by a debris flow coming from upriver.
>
> In arid climates, it's entirely possible for the entire flow of the
> stream, except during flash flooding events, to vanish by percolation and
> evaporation, so that there is no river downstream. There's no well-defined
> sinkhole, and no well-defined specific point at which it transitions from
> perennial to intermittent, intermittent to ephemeral, ephemeral to a dry
> wadi that has seen water only in geologic time, eventually disappearing
> entirely into a salt flat.
>
> It's relatively rare to find a fan that's still actively depositing
> sediment. One example is that Mòlèqiē Hé (莫勒切河) in Xinjiang forms an
> enormous and nearly unique one near 37.4°  north, 84.3° east.
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:21, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> The WIki picture of a sinkhole happens to be large, but in karst terrain
> they come in all sizes. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737 is
> a sinkhole of quite a small stream.
>

It's been a long time since I've been near (never on) karst.  The stuff I
saw had
no sign of running water or channels at the time but was pocked with many
holes
(presumably caused by rainfall alone) large enough for a person or a sheep
to fall into.

The way the wiki has it, I don't think sinkhole is appropriate for small
streams
vanishing into small holes that even a cat couldn't drop into.


>
> What Mark is showing is usually called an alluvial fan.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan
> Some fans have well-defined (perennial or intermittent) distributary
> streams flowing through them. Often, though, most of the stream channels
> are ephemeral in nature. Sometimes an individual channel was cut in a
> matter of hours by a debris flow coming from upriver.
>

Ah-ha.  I recently saw a network that could be one of those.  Search the map
for "Teifi Pools" then zoom out, a lot.  I fixed some lake names, fixed
which of
two tributaries was the main one on a river and a couple of streams, and
named
a couple of streams.  Oh, and added a dam to a reservoir. I didn't do
anything about
tweaking the waterways that had been crudely mapped, or adding the
tangle of waterways shown on OS OpenData StreetView that haven't been
mapped.  That might be an alluvial fan with intermittent and ephemeral
waterways,
although the slope countours don't seem to support that idea.  Doing a full
tidy-up
on that was more work than I felt like doing, so I didn't worry about it.

I wouldn't even have done that much, but the local newspaper mentioned the
area
and I corrected a few egregious errors as well as adding a locality so that
it
would at least turn up on a search.  Now I've had another look around the
wider area to try to identify if it's an alluvial fan I see more misnamed
streams
and missing streams.  I've just fixed some of them.  I want to forget the
entire place exists - far too much work to do it all right.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:08 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner  wrote:
>
>>
>> For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation,
>> look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa.  It looks like
>> someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but
>> forgot to add the water.
>>
>
> As I understand it (possibly not all that well) a sinkhole as the wiki
> defines it
> is a large hole in the ground which water enters and vanishes without
> pooling.
> What Ordnance Survey calls "sinks" appears to be more akin to a hole in a
> golf
> course that water enters and vanishes.  What Ordnance Survey calls
> "spreads"
> is a sand or soil or gravel surface that water vanishes into without
> pooling and without there being any noticeable hole.
>

The WIki picture of a sinkhole happens to be large, but in karst terrain
they come in all sizes. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737 is a
sinkhole of quite a small stream. I couldn't find a good way to tag the
rise a short distance to the west.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226924460 is a much larger sinkhole. In a
wet season there's significant outflow to the east, but in a dry season all
of the outflow from the lake runs through the caves, exiting through cracks
in the limestone below the cliffs to the east. Many of the small streams
thus formed haven't been mapped because there are significant technical
challenges to mapping them. GPS coverage at the cliff bases is so poor that
one would probably have to resort to alidade and plane table, and the
evergreen cover is dense enough that you can't see much that's useful on
satellite imagery.

I'm not sure if any of those fit what you have and maybe what you have is
> more of a network of intermittent streams.
>

What Mark is showing is usually called an alluvial fan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan
Some fans have well-defined (perennial or intermittent) distributary
streams flowing through them. Often, though, most of the stream channels
are ephemeral in nature. Sometimes an individual channel was cut in a
matter of hours by a debris flow coming from upriver.

In arid climates, it's entirely possible for the entire flow of the stream,
except during flash flooding events, to vanish by percolation and
evaporation, so that there is no river downstream. There's no well-defined
sinkhole, and no well-defined specific point at which it transitions from
perennial to intermittent, intermittent to ephemeral, ephemeral to a dry
wadi that has seen water only in geologic time, eventually disappearing
entirely into a salt flat.

It's relatively rare to find a fan that's still actively depositing
sediment. One example is that Mòlèqiē Hé (莫勒切河) in Xinjiang forms an
enormous and nearly unique one near 37.4°  north, 84.3° east.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner  wrote:

>
> For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation,
> look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa.  It looks like
> someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but
> forgot to add the water.
>

As I understand it (possibly not all that well) a sinkhole as the wiki
defines it
is a large hole in the ground which water enters and vanishes without
pooling.
What Ordnance Survey calls "sinks" appears to be more akin to a hole in a
golf
course that water enters and vanishes.  What Ordnance Survey calls "spreads"
is a sand or soil or gravel surface that water vanishes into without
pooling and
without there being any noticeable hole.

I'm not sure if any of those fit what you have and maybe what you have is
more of a network of intermittent streams.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:37:40 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:36, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> > Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing
> > Imagery with an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239
> > and flows generally to the east and north only to dissipate around
> > 33.06076,-116.06077. 
> 
> There's water there?  It looks like the surface of Mars.  I can see
> subtle features
> but I'd hesitate to call them water from Bing imagery alone.  Could
> be deer trails
> for all I can tell.

If you're familiar with that sort of terrain, the streams are
blindingly obvious (Esri Clarity is probably a better choice than Bing
for spotting them).

> > The collection area is no problem nor is the ephemeral waterway
> > until about 33.03910,-116.099138 where it start bifurcating into
> > smaller and smaller channels which eventually disappear.
> >  
> 
> Either I'm looking at the wrong place, or the USGS Topographic Map
> layer thinks
> things are somewhat different, at least in the rainy season.  It
> looks like you have
> a number of sinks and, generally north-east of the sinks, issues (as
> Ordnance Survey
> would call them), on intermittent streams (if I'm interpreting USGS
> symbols correctly).

Probably the best place to see spreading would be around Coyote Lake at
34.1618, -116.2123; there are additional "spread out and disappear"
patterns at the north and south ends of the lakebed.

For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation,
look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa.  It looks like
someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but
forgot to add the water.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing Imagery with an 
area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239 and flows generally to the 
east and north only to dissipate around 33.06076,-116.06077. The collection 
area is no problem nor is the ephemeral waterway until about 
33.03910,-116.099138 where it start bifurcating into smaller and smaller 
channels which eventually disappear.

Cheers,
Tod

> On Aug 12, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Would waterway=spreads only be used for intermittent streams/rivers where the 
> waterway spreads out and evaporates on the surface?
> 
> If the water appears to sink into sand, gravel or fractured karst rock, would 
> we want a different tag instead, e.g. waterway=sink?
> 
> I understand that natural=cave_entrance can also be used when a waterway 
> drops into a sinkhole or other open cave entrance, often found in limestone 
> (karst) geology areas.
> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:52 AM Paul Allen  > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:07, Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> 
> To clarify it for me, the a “waterway=spread” tag would be used on a node 
> (rendered possibly as an asterisk) or on a way? Or either depending the 
> situation?
> 
> I'd say "spreads" rather than "spread" because that's the term OS uses.  I've 
> only
> ever seen OS use it on the terminal node of a waterway.  More of a crow's-foot
> symbol than an asterisk, usually, but an asterisk works.  I have no idea how
> you'd render it sensibly on a way.  I assume you're thinking of something 
> like a
> very sandy river bed where the water sometimes gets further than other times,
> depending on conditions.  I'd be happy enough with a single node, because
> that's better than we have now.  If you can justify applying it to a way and
> think there's a need then do so, but if you're just trying to keep QA tools
> happy...
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Aug 12, 2020, at 4:49 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> 
> It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is indeterminate 
> [1], thus the problem mapping it.
> 
> Ordnance Survey represents this as a sort of star of very short waterways
> at the approximate point of disappearance and labels them "spreads."
> 
> The map is representative.  We can tolerate precisely specified amounts of
> doubt and uncertainty.  The name "spreads" indicates the indeterminacy even
> if we map it as a node.  Just as we render a spring as a circle on the
> map, an asterisk would do for spreads.
> 
> Perhaps a “indeterminate=yes” tag on the last node of a water way that 
> “peters out” [2] could be used to signal the QA tools that the end of a water 
> way is not a mistake.
> 
> If we tag it as waterway=spreads the indeterminacy is implied and QA tools
> can be happy there is no mistake.
> 
> Might be useful in cases other than an ephemeral water way in the desert 
> though I haven’t thought of one yet.
> 
> Useful in coastal waterways that peter out in sand above high water.  Or 
> coastal
> waterways that peter out in sand just below high water when the tide is out - 
> they
> haven't carved a channel down to the low water mark, they just vanish into the
> sand (but QA tools won't have a problem with those if they connect to the high
> water mark).  And yes, there are coastal waterways that carve a channel 
> through
> a beach right down to low water and others that just peter out on the beach
> close to high water.
> 

To clarify it for me, the a “waterway=spread” tag would be used on a node 
(rendered possibly as an asterisk) or on a way? Or either depending the 
situation?

Thanks!
Tod





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:36, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing Imagery with
> an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239 and flows generally
> to the east and north only to dissipate around 33.06076,-116.06077.
>

There's water there?  It looks like the surface of Mars.  I can see subtle
features
but I'd hesitate to call them water from Bing imagery alone.  Could be deer
trails
for all I can tell.


> The collection area is no problem nor is the ephemeral waterway until
> about 33.03910,-116.099138 where it start bifurcating into smaller and
> smaller channels which eventually disappear.
>

Either I'm looking at the wrong place, or the USGS Topographic Map layer
thinks
things are somewhat different, at least in the rainy season.  It looks like
you have
a number of sinks and, generally north-east of the sinks, issues (as
Ordnance Survey
would call them), on intermittent streams (if I'm interpreting USGS symbols
correctly).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:06, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Would waterway=spreads only be used for intermittent streams/rivers where
> the waterway spreads out and evaporates on the surface?
>

I hadn't even considered its use with intermittent streams.

>
> If the water appears to sink into sand, gravel or fractured karst rock,
> would we want a different tag instead, e.g. waterway=sink?
>

Not really.  There's no hole it goes down.  At least that's how it appears
on OS
maps.  They show waterways that just terminate, which I assume are sinks
(and we probably need a tag such as waterway=sink for the ones that
aren't big/deep enough to qualify as natural=sinkhole).  Ordnance Survey
also shows, and labels, spreads.

OS appears to have renamed or deleted their terminology pages because I can
no longer find them in Google.  But I eventually found this copy:
https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/files/os-mastermap-real-world-object-catalogue.pdf
which says:

The source of a river is defined by one of the following terms:
Collects - where the source is a bog or a marsh
Spring - where the source is a natural spring
Issues - where the source is an emission from an agricultural drain, or
where the stream re-emerges from underground

Where a river disappears underground the point will be described Sinks.
Where a river spreads on a sand or shingle beach, or in a marsh, it will be
described Spreads

We have springs and sinkholes.  We don't really need collects if we map the
marsh
and the waterway that issues from it.  For completeness it would be nice to
have
issues, sinks and spreads.  We don't have to copy what others do, but it's
possible they did things that way for good reason...

I understand that natural=cave_entrance can also be used when a waterway
> drops into a sinkhole or other open cave entrance, often found in limestone
> (karst) geology areas.
>

And then forms, at least in part, an underground river.  That's a whole
nother
can of worms.  And doesn't seem to match the definition of spreads.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Would waterway=spreads only be used for intermittent streams/rivers where
the waterway spreads out and evaporates on the surface?

If the water appears to sink into sand, gravel or fractured karst rock,
would we want a different tag instead, e.g. waterway=sink?

I understand that natural=cave_entrance can also be used when a waterway
drops into a sinkhole or other open cave entrance, often found in limestone
(karst) geology areas.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:52 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:07, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> To clarify it for me, the a “waterway=spread” tag would be used on a node
>> (rendered possibly as an asterisk) or on a way? Or either depending the
>> situation?
>>
>
> I'd say "spreads" rather than "spread" because that's the term OS uses.
> I've only
> ever seen OS use it on the terminal node of a waterway.  More of a
> crow's-foot
> symbol than an asterisk, usually, but an asterisk works.  I have no idea
> how
> you'd render it sensibly on a way.  I assume you're thinking of something
> like a
> very sandy river bed where the water sometimes gets further than other
> times,
> depending on conditions.  I'd be happy enough with a single node, because
> that's better than we have now.  If you can justify applying it to a way
> and
> think there's a need then do so, but if you're just trying to keep QA tools
> happy...
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:07, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> To clarify it for me, the a “waterway=spread” tag would be used on a node
> (rendered possibly as an asterisk) or on a way? Or either depending the
> situation?
>

I'd say "spreads" rather than "spread" because that's the term OS uses.
I've only
ever seen OS use it on the terminal node of a waterway.  More of a
crow's-foot
symbol than an asterisk, usually, but an asterisk works.  I have no idea how
you'd render it sensibly on a way.  I assume you're thinking of something
like a
very sandy river bed where the water sometimes gets further than other
times,
depending on conditions.  I'd be happy enough with a single node, because
that's better than we have now.  If you can justify applying it to a way and
think there's a need then do so, but if you're just trying to keep QA tools
happy...

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is
> indeterminate [1], thus the problem mapping it.
>

Ordnance Survey represents this as a sort of star of very short waterways
at the approximate point of disappearance and labels them "spreads."

The map is representative.  We can tolerate precisely specified amounts of
doubt and uncertainty.  The name "spreads" indicates the indeterminacy even
if we map it as a node.  Just as we render a spring as a circle on the
map, an asterisk would do for spreads.

Perhaps a “indeterminate=yes” tag on the last node of a water way that
> “peters out” [2] could be used to signal the QA tools that the end of a
> water way is not a mistake.


If we tag it as waterway=spreads the indeterminacy is implied and QA tools
can be happy there is no mistake.


> Might be useful in cases other than an ephemeral water way in the desert
> though I haven’t thought of one yet.
>

Useful in coastal waterways that peter out in sand above high water.  Or
coastal
waterways that peter out in sand just below high water when the tide is out
- they
haven't carved a channel down to the low water mark, they just vanish into
the
sand (but QA tools won't have a problem with those if they connect to the
high
water mark).  And yes, there are coastal waterways that carve a channel
through
a beach right down to low water and others that just peter out on the beach
close to high water.

---
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Alan Mackie]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 02:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 07:03, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> >
>> > Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK,
>> Canada and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What
>> are the opinions using:
>> >
>> > storm_drain = inlet
>>
>>
>> I would suggest to use an established key, e.g. man_made
>> value could be storm_drain_inlet although this is not very handy. Maybe
>> water_inlet? drain_inlet?
>>
>
> Or the existing manhole=drain is used ~24000 times
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:manhole%3Ddrain=2013942
>
>
I think there was a general feeling on this list that most of those drains
wouldn't fit a man and so calling them manholes is a bit of a misnomer.

Earlier discussion also branched into talk of entrances to culvert like
structures where the other end was unknown or a difficult to map network.
Drainage ditch running into a sewer type situations. These also don't
resemble manholes in the traditional sense.

If the native speakers think that „storm“ is required, so be it
>>
>
> Not essential for this native speaker :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

I’ve not seen a suggestion for this case yet that has any traction. . .

It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is indeterminate 
[1], thus the problem mapping it.

> Definition of indeterminate:
> 1a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague
> b : not known in advance
> c : not leading to a definite end or result

Or from my old microprint edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (please 
excuse any transcription errors):

> 1. Not definitely set down; undetermined.
> 2. Not fixed in extent, number, character or nature; left uncertain as to 
> limits of extent, number, etc.; of uncertain size or character; indefinite, 
> indistinct, uncertain.

Perhaps a “indeterminate=yes” tag on the last node of a water way that “peters 
out” [2] could be used to signal the QA tools that the end of a water way is 
not a mistake. Might be useful in cases other than an ephemeral water way in 
the desert though I haven’t thought of one yet.

Cheers!
Tod

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminate
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peter%20out

> On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> I’ve yet to find a term or tag name that I like for the case where the water 
> disappears from the surface in a desert environment. One issue is the 
> location will vary depending on how big the storm was (or perhaps for a 
> seasonal stream how wet the preceding wet season was). So it might be a tag 
> applied to an intermittent way. Or, for simplicity, it might be a tag on the 
> last node of the way. And, of course, the only reason for it is to let the QA 
> tools know that it is not a mistake.
> 
> I wonder if the QA tools could simply ignore connectivity issues for 
> intermittent waterways?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>> On Jul 24, 2020, at 2:04 AM, Alan Mackie  wrote:
>> 
>> This is specifically about how to label the end point where the waterway 
>> doesn't drain into another waterbody, not how to label an intermittent 
>> stream in general.
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 07:03, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> >
> > Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK,
> Canada and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What
> are the opinions using:
> >
> > storm_drain = inlet
>
>
> I would suggest to use an established key, e.g. man_made
> value could be storm_drain_inlet although this is not very handy. Maybe
> water_inlet? drain_inlet?
>

Or the existing manhole=drain is used ~24000 times

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:manhole%3Ddrain=2013942

If the native speakers think that „storm“ is required, so be it
>

Not essential for this native speaker :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 06:20, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I’ve yet to find a term or tag name that I like for the case where the
> water disappears from the surface in a desert environment.


& I don't think you're going to find one, because there's "nothing" to
point to on the ground & say "There, that's the spot that the water
disappeared!"

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

I’ve yet to find a term or tag name that I like for the case where the water 
disappears from the surface in a desert environment. One issue is the location 
will vary depending on how big the storm was (or perhaps for a seasonal stream 
how wet the preceding wet season was). So it might be a tag applied to an 
intermittent way. Or, for simplicity, it might be a tag on the last node of the 
way. And, of course, the only reason for it is to let the QA tools know that it 
is not a mistake.

I wonder if the QA tools could simply ignore connectivity issues for 
intermittent waterways?

Thoughts?

> On Jul 24, 2020, at 2:04 AM, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> This is specifically about how to label the end point where the waterway 
> doesn't drain into another waterbody, not how to label an intermittent stream 
> in general.
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch  >:
> It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an 
> appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a place 
> that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around here are 
> not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to get into when 
> the grate is removed. But OSM has odd tagging for other things so why not 
> this too?
> 
> 
> I would rather try to limit the "odd cases", and maybe even get rid of them 
> in the long term. There is no benefit from using inappropriate terms. If 
> manhole=* is generally considered to be about manholes, why would we want to 
> encourage more usage for non-manhole objects?
> 
> IMHO we should fix the definition in the wiki by making it more precise, as 
> there aren't so many yet.
> 

Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, Canada and 
the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What are the 
opinions using:

storm_drain = inlet

For the location that a surface drainage ditch disappears into an underground 
storm water system. The tag would most often be used on a node.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_drain
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_drain#Inlet





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, Canada 
> and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What are the 
> opinions using:
> 
> storm_drain = inlet


I would suggest to use an established key, e.g. man_made
value could be storm_drain_inlet although this is not very handy. Maybe 
water_inlet? drain_inlet?
If the native speakers think that „storm“ is required, so be it

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Alan Mackie]

This is specifically about how to label the end point where the waterway
doesn't drain into another waterbody, not how to label an intermittent
stream in general.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020, 07:05 Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 01:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out
>> over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate
>> this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this
>> discussion that has any existing use or consensus in the list.
>>
>
> It would appear that =stream + intermittent=yes is the best option?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:intermittent
>
> Wadi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwadi was
> previously used but deprecated in favour of intermittent
>
> Drystream could be an option?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrystream, but now
> also discouraged.
>
> Ephemeral was also proposed but apparently hasn't gone any further?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ephemeral
>
> Don't know how any of them would go with OSMOSE though?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 01:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out
> over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate
> this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this
> discussion that has any existing use or consensus in the list.
>

It would appear that =stream + intermittent=yes is the best option?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:intermittent

Wadi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwadi was previously
used but deprecated in favour of intermittent

Drystream could be an option?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrystream, but now also
discouraged.

Ephemeral was also proposed but apparently hasn't gone any further?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ephemeral

Don't know how any of them would go with OSMOSE though?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an 
appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a place 
that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around here are 
not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to get into when the 
grate is removed. But OSM has odd tagging for other things so why not this too?

I will start tagging that where the surface drainage ditches disappear into the 
ground. I wonder if QA tools like Osmose will stop nagging me about those 
waterways.

We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out over 
the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate this is not 
a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this discussion that has 
any existing use or consensus in the list.

These are definitely not sink holes and shouldn’t be tagged as such.

Digression: The wiki page for natural=sinkhole [3] says that it is a tagging 
error to use natural=sink_hole. When I look at taginfo I see nearly 2000 
occurances of natural=sink_hole and none for natural=sinkhole [4]. I guess the 
write of the wiki page disagreed with the spelling of the most used spelling of 
the tag value.

Anyway, back to waterways dissipating in the desert. Where the flowing water 
disappears varies considerably from storm to storm so maybe it shouldn’t even 
be a tag on the last node of the way. Maybe the last section of the way could 
have a tag instead?

Would a tag on the way be better or worse than a tag on the last node on the 
way?

Maybe a discussion on this will turn up a possible way to map the situation.

Thank you for the responses so far!

—Tod

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:manhole%3Ddrain
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=manhole%3Ddrain
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dsinkhole
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natural%3Dsink


> On Jul 20, 2020, at 3:19 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Manhole=drain has more than 2000 uses, most of them seem to be water drainage 
> grids with no access for humans.
> But if you want to retag them with something different you would need to do 
> this manually.
> I would not touch it, even if it is an unfortunate tagging.
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 21:33, Alan Mackie  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 11:28, Paul Allen  > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt  > wrote:
> manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not 
> suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage 
> 
> 
> People have used manhole=drain for that purpose and the wikipage
> for manhole=drain documents that use.  However, that photo appears
> to be of a UK storm drain which is not a manhole by my definition
> (too small for entry by a person) or by the wiki's definition for
> Key:manhole which states "Hole with a cover that allows access to
> an underground service location, just large enough for a human to climb
> through."
> 
> In my opinion we should deprecate manhole=drain except where
> it really is large enough for access by a person.  We need a
> better tag.  Well, two tags.  One for storm drains and one
> for sinks that are too small to merit natural=sinkhole with
> any of the current sinkhole=* types.  Oh, and a tag for
> spreads, too.
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> I think we also need one for "entrances" to pipes/tunnels of unknown extent 
> where the entrance is by horizontal movement of the water rather than by 
> falling into a hole. The presence/absence of gratings or mesh may be useful 
> for these too.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch :

> It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has
> an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a
> place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around
> here are not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to get
> into when the grate is removed. But OSM has odd tagging for other things so
> why not this too?
>


I would rather try to limit the "odd cases", and maybe even get rid of them
in the long term. There is no benefit from using inappropriate terms. If
manhole=* is generally considered to be about manholes, why would we want
to encourage more usage for non-manhole objects?

IMHO we should fix the definition in the wiki by making it more precise, as
there aren't so many yet.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 16:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out
> over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate
> this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this
> discussion that has any existing use or consensus in the list.
>

I thought I already mentioned that Ordnance Survey calls them spreads.
If not, I've just mentioned it.

>
> Anyway, back to waterways dissipating in the desert. Where the flowing
> water disappears varies considerably from storm to storm so maybe it
> shouldn’t even be a tag on the last node of the way. Maybe the last section
> of the way could have a tag instead?
>
> Would a tag on the way be better or worse than a tag on the last node on
> the way?
>

Tagging the node is wrong if there are clear fan-outs.  OTOH, you could
tag the terminal node on each fan-out in that case.  Tagging part of the
way implies that you KNOW that particular length of the way is all where
water dissipates into the ground.

I'd go with a node.  Render it as a large asterisk.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 22/07/2020 11.25, Tod Fitch wrote:

Digression: The wiki page for natural=sinkhole [3] says that it is a
tagging error to use natural=sink_hole. When I look at taginfo I see
nearly 2000 occurances of natural=sink_hole and none for
natural=sinkhole [4]. I guess the write of the wiki page disagreed
with the spelling of the most used spelling of the tag value.


I am fairly confident that "sinkhole" is the correct American spelling, 
and "sink hole" is discouraged; my guess is that's what the author was 
thinking.


That said, OSM apparently uses en_GB spelling, and "sink hole" *does* 
seem to have use in the UK (but it seems "sinkhole" does also).


FWIW, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinkhole) only lists 
"sink-hole" as an alternative, although Wiktionary does have "sink hole".


Interestingly, the etymology is given as 'from sinkehole, sinkeholl', 
suggesting that "sink hole" is a neologism and "sinkhole" is more 
historically accurate.


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: natural=sinkhole - this tag has been used 9908 times:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=natural=sinkhole

It is widely distributed:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=sinkhole#map

In contrast, natural=sink_hole appears to have only been used in 2 areas in
England, mostly added 1 year ago by a certain mapper:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=sink_hole#map - I assume
this was a mistake.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:27 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has
> an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a
> place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around
> here are not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to get
> into when the grate is removed. But OSM has odd tagging for other things so
> why not this too?
>
> I will start tagging that where the surface drainage ditches disappear
> into the ground. I wonder if QA tools like Osmose will stop nagging me
> about those waterways.
>
> We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out
> over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate
> this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this
> discussion that has any existing use or consensus in the list.
>
> These are definitely not sink holes and shouldn’t be tagged as such.
>
> Digression: The wiki page for natural=sinkhole [3] says that it is a
> tagging error to use natural=sink_hole. When I look at taginfo I see nearly
> 2000 occurances of natural=sink_hole and none for natural=sinkhole [4]. I
> guess the write of the wiki page disagreed with the spelling of the most
> used spelling of the tag value.
>
> Anyway, back to waterways dissipating in the desert. Where the flowing
> water disappears varies considerably from storm to storm so maybe it
> shouldn’t even be a tag on the last node of the way. Maybe the last section
> of the way could have a tag instead?
>
> Would a tag on the way be better or worse than a tag on the last node on
> the way?
>
> Maybe a discussion on this will turn up a possible way to map the
> situation.
>
> Thank you for the responses so far!
>
> —Tod
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:manhole%3Ddrain
> [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=manhole%3Ddrain
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dsinkhole
> [3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natural%3Dsink
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 3:19 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Manhole=drain has more than 2000 uses, most of them seem to be water
> drainage grids with no access for humans.
> But if you want to retag them with something different you would need to
> do this manually.
> I would not touch it, even if it is an unfortunate tagging.
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 21:33, Alan Mackie  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 11:28, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>>
 manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are
 not suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage
 

>>>
>>> People have used manhole=drain for that purpose and the wikipage
>>> for manhole=drain documents that use.  However, that photo appears
>>> to be of a UK storm drain which is not a manhole by my definition
>>> (too small for entry by a person) or by the wiki's definition for
>>> Key:manhole which states "Hole with a cover that allows access to
>>> an underground service location, just large enough for a human to climb
>>> through."
>>>
>>> In my opinion we should deprecate manhole=drain except where
>>> it really is large enough for access by a person.  We need a
>>> better tag.  Well, two tags.  One for storm drains and one
>>> for sinks that are too small to merit natural=sinkhole with
>>> any of the current sinkhole=* types.  Oh, and a tag for
>>> spreads, too.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>> I think we also need one for "entrances" to pipes/tunnels of unknown
>> extent where the entrance is by horizontal movement of the water rather
>> than by falling into a hole. The presence/absence of gratings or mesh may
>> be useful for these too.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Volker Schmidt]

Manhole=drain has more than 2000 uses, most of them seem to be water
drainage grids with no access for humans.
But if you want to retag them with something different you would need to do
this manually.
I would not touch it, even if it is an unfortunate tagging.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 21:33, Alan Mackie  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 11:28, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>> manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are
>>> not suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage
>>> 
>>>
>>
>> People have used manhole=drain for that purpose and the wikipage
>> for manhole=drain documents that use.  However, that photo appears
>> to be of a UK storm drain which is not a manhole by my definition
>> (too small for entry by a person) or by the wiki's definition for
>> Key:manhole which states "Hole with a cover that allows access to
>> an underground service location, just large enough for a human to climb
>> through."
>>
>> In my opinion we should deprecate manhole=drain except where
>> it really is large enough for access by a person.  We need a
>> better tag.  Well, two tags.  One for storm drains and one
>> for sinks that are too small to merit natural=sinkhole with
>> any of the current sinkhole=* types.  Oh, and a tag for
>> spreads, too.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>
> I think we also need one for "entrances" to pipes/tunnels of unknown
> extent where the entrance is by horizontal movement of the water rather
> than by falling into a hole. The presence/absence of gratings or mesh may
> be useful for these too.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Alan Mackie]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 11:28, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are
>> not suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage
>> 
>>
>
> People have used manhole=drain for that purpose and the wikipage
> for manhole=drain documents that use.  However, that photo appears
> to be of a UK storm drain which is not a manhole by my definition
> (too small for entry by a person) or by the wiki's definition for
> Key:manhole which states "Hole with a cover that allows access to
> an underground service location, just large enough for a human to climb
> through."
>
> In my opinion we should deprecate manhole=drain except where
> it really is large enough for access by a person.  We need a
> better tag.  Well, two tags.  One for storm drains and one
> for sinks that are too small to merit natural=sinkhole with
> any of the current sinkhole=* types.  Oh, and a tag for
> spreads, too.
>
> --
> Paul
>

I think we also need one for "entrances" to pipes/tunnels of unknown extent
where the entrance is by horizontal movement of the water rather than by
falling into a hole. The presence/absence of gratings or mesh may be useful
for these too.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not
> suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage
> 
>

People have used manhole=drain for that purpose and the wikipage
for manhole=drain documents that use.  However, that photo appears
to be of a UK storm drain which is not a manhole by my definition
(too small for entry by a person) or by the wiki's definition for
Key:manhole which states "Hole with a cover that allows access to
an underground service location, just large enough for a human to climb
through."

In my opinion we should deprecate manhole=drain except where
it really is large enough for access by a person.  We need a
better tag.  Well, two tags.  One for storm drains and one
for sinks that are too small to merit natural=sinkhole with
any of the current sinkhole=* types.  Oh, and a tag for
spreads, too.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Volker Schmidt]

manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not
suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage



On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, 22:55 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 18. Jul 2020, at 20:42, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> >
> > The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain?
>
>
> but this is for manholes, not suitable for small grates where a person can
> not enter.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18. Jul 2020, at 20:42, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain?


but this is for manholes, not suitable for small grates where a person can not 
enter.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 18, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 18/07/2020 19:41, Alan Mackie wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> 
>> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications of 
>> a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag them as 
>> errors to be fixed.
>> 
>> One of the things we need is an anti-spring.  Marked on Ordnance Survey maps
>> as a sink.  We have natural=sinkhole but that seems only to apply to a large
>> hole and/or depression.
>> 
>> The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain? sinkhole=ponor seems to 
>> be for natural-looking versions.
>> 
> The "one that everyone* did in geography at school" is 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944314148/history
> 
> That's currently tagged as "waterway=cave_of_debouchement”.
> 

The desert ones aren’t sink holes. Often the intermittent/ephemeral waterways 
spread out over the pediment [1] or alluvial fan [2] at the base of the 
mountains and simply dissipates.

Not yet mapped, but if you look at the Bing Imagery for this area [3] you can 
see a well defined “wash” (local term for this type of waterway) coming from 
the hills/mountains to the west and fan out to nothing over the desert floor in 
a north easterly direction.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/science/pediment-geology
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan#In_arid_climates
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/33.0877/-116.1253



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[ael]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:53:09PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> 
> >> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications 
> >> of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag 
> >> them as errors to be fixed.
> >> 
> 
> The desert ones aren’t sink holes. Often the intermittent/ephemeral waterways 
> spread out over the pediment [1] or alluvial fan [2] at the base of the 
> mountains and simply dissipates.
> 

I think OS maps mark this sort of situation with "spreads". Well an adjective
describing the end of a waterway, I suppose. It is quite intuitive and
descriptive. Maybe a tag along those lines: "dissipates" or some such?

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/07/2020 19:41, Alan Mackie wrote:



On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen > wrote:


On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>> wrote:


What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible
indications of a water way ends at this point and that the QA
tools should not flag them as errors to be fixed.


One of the things we need is an anti-spring. Marked on Ordnance
Survey maps
as a sink.  We have natural=sinkhole but that seems only to apply
to a large
hole and/or depression.


The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain? sinkhole=ponor 
seems to be for natural-looking versions.


The "one that everyone* did in geography at school" is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944314148/history


That's currently tagged as "waterway=cave_of_debouchement".

Best Regards,

Andy

* everyone in my school in Yorkshire, UK, anyway.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:42, Alan Mackie  wrote:

>
> I'd be tempted to just put culvert tagging on the node and add a barrier
> tag for any gratings. I'm sure that will also annoy the validators, but it
> should at least indicate to other mappers that it goes somewhere.
>

It will annoy validators because culverts are for waterways.  Lines, not
nodes.
So you need to know where the culvert goes.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jul 18, 2020, 19:52 by t...@fitchfamily.org:

> During this period of “social distancing” I’ve been trying to work down the 
> number of errors that tools like Osmose have reported about my editing. I am 
> getting close to starting on the warnings about waterways not connecting 
> properly. There are a couple of situations that I’ve mapped that I believe 
> would benefit from having a waterway equivalent to the noexit tag used on 
> highways:
> A number of housing developments in my semi-arid area have concrete lined 
> exposed drainage ditches installed on hill side cuttings to control erosion. 
> Those ditches usually lead to a grates to an underground storm water piping 
> system. The issue is that there is little or no evidence where those 
> underground pipes go. So the exposed drainage ditches I’ve mapped just end at 
> the grate and I get warnings from QA tools.
>
Is there some existing OSM tags to map such grates? QA too should not complain 
about ditches
disappearing into them.

It may require inventing a new tag.

> drain:point_feature=inflow_pipe”
>
But this tag is horrible, looks like something from an import.

man_made=drain_grate ?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications
>> of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag
>> them as errors to be fixed.
>>
>
> One of the things we need is an anti-spring.  Marked on Ordnance Survey
> maps
> as a sink.  We have natural=sinkhole but that seems only to apply to a
> large
> hole and/or depression.
>

The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain? sinkhole=ponor seems
to be for natural-looking versions.

For the delta like regions if these tend to just peter out, some sort of
intermittent water area may be better. Like for an infiltration basin, but
natural. Then again, maybe Osmose shouldn't complain about the abrupt end
of an intermittent waterway unless another one starts nearby?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:manhole%3Ddrain

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sinkhole%3Dponor



> I can see that the underground storm drain system may need a different
>> indication as the waterway does continue, it is just not visible where.
>>
>
> It's a culvert, if you know its route.  Otherwise it's anybody's guess
> where it goes
> and what happens to it.
>

There are wiki pages for tunnel=flooded (doesn't ring true for a sewer) and
man_made=pipeline + location = underground (also seems inappropriate).

There is also an old proposal for water networks here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_network#Wastewater_network_.28sewer.29

I'd be tempted to just put culvert tagging on the node and add a barrier
tag for any gratings. I'm sure that will also annoy the validators, but it
should at least indicate to other mappers that it goes somewhere.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications
> of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag
> them as errors to be fixed.
>

One of the things we need is an anti-spring.  Marked on Ordnance Survey maps
as a sink.  We have natural=sinkhole but that seems only to apply to a large
hole and/or depression.

I can see that the underground storm drain system may need a different
> indication as the waterway does continue, it is just not visible where.
>

It's a culvert, if you know its route.  Otherwise it's anybody's guess
where it goes
and what happens to it.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging