I note on the Natural England condition statement that they use the phrase "Residual Waterway", so perhaps we can make use of something like canal=residual.
Jonathan Briggs did a nice article on the ecology of the Montgomery Canal in British Wildlife a few years ago (BW, 17:401-410, 2006 IIRC). ________________________________ From: Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, 20 January, 2011 12:21:58 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible) Someoneelse wrote: > I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top > bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think > the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything. From WW's most recent article on the Cromford: .... And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.) So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
