Stephen Gower wrote: > Hi Gerv - I've snipped lots below - if I haven't commented on any > part, I pretty much agree. > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 06:36:48PM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote: >> Narrow sections are denoted by maxwidth. One narrowboat (just over 7 >> feet) is given as 2.5m. Two boats is 5m. It's not necessary to mark a >> two-boat width restriction for bridge holes, which are implied narrow. > > I don't mind there being an assumption that unspecified units are > metres, but the UK canals are done in feet, and if I'm going to put > any dimensions in, it'll be in feet, so I'd need a way to specify > that's what I'd done.
Richard seems to have chimed in with superior knowledge here, so I'll defer to him. Apparently we can use non-metres if we specify. >> "boat=private" is used for private parts of the canal. > > I see no reason not to use access=private, myself, since the > towpath can have a seperate access tag. OK... I picked this up because it's defined on the Map Features page. But maybe best practice has moved on since then? >> The "lock=yes" way(s) takes various lock-related information, including: >> >> - the lock name, if it has one, with "name=<foo>". > > since this way is also part of the waterway, name= is already in > use for the name of the waterway - we need something else for the > lock names. Good point. Does this problem have analogies with other sorts of way? How is it dealt with there? >> A flight of locks with a unifying name (e.g. "Hatton Locks") is denoted >> with a node placed in an appropriately central position with new tag >> value "place=lock_flight" and "name=<name>". > > Better to group them with a relation, I'd have thought. You may be right. I'm not too up on relations. <reads> >> Mooring info should be attached to the relevant stretch of towpath [...] > > On UK canals, mooring is generally allowed everywhere, except where > explicity signed otherwise This is true. But there is also a need to mark places where mooring is explicitly provided for or encouraged. (I'm sure you'd agree.) > - do we need a tag for > mooring-not-allowed? I think we do. Would it be reasonable to have "mooring=yes" meaning "there is explicit mooring here", "mooring=no" meaning "you may not moor", and nothing being "well, it's the bank, knock yourself out"? Or would that be confusing, given that most other yes/no tags are dual state rather than tri-state? Gerv _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
