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 be removed.
I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not, however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys." Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated for use on such routes anyway. Dave On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <multimod...@gmail.com> 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 accepted as a result of voting process on a formal proposal. > Personally > > > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels. > > I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be better, > but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data users I see > no advantage in banning current practice which is also in concordance with > the wiki for instance waterway=fairway (fairway on a lake is added as an > addition to waterway=canal/river ) > > Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is > "questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this > is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be > used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed > ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a > navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement > for routing). > > If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki. > > Regards, > > [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects > > -- > Fernando Trebien > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
