Hi Dave, On Dienstag, 12. Oktober 2010, Dave F. wrote: > On 05/10/2010 10:44, Werner Hoch wrote: > > The change DaveF doesn't like is the change of the tags > > > > type=route route=canal > > > > into: > > type=waterway waterway=canal > > > > I thought this change is correct, as the waterway relations are > > usually used to describe the waterway, > > This is not a waterway relation; it is a route relation. In my > example the canal/river doesn't have a waterway relation; it's tags > are added directly to the way. eg > > waterway=canal > name=* > > In general, ways can have multiple relations atrtached to them. So it > could have a waterway relation & a route relation. > They are not the same thing & I think that's what's confusing you.
Seems it's not only confusing me. Isn't it. > > There's also an ongoing proposal on the waterway relations to clean > > up all the waterway mess [3]. > > [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway > > This page appears to confirm the confusion. It seems people are using > route=* to describe waterways. People are using type=route to describe waterways and/or routes. It's hard to guess what they've meant. In the past most type=route waterways were in hungary. User City-busz has created them. He switched all the waterways to type=waterway already. Type=route sometimes describes the way (road, railway, waterway) and sometimes a travel route (bicycle, hiking, ferry, boat, canoe, ...) > I believe this is incorrect. You might help to sort out all type=route relations that describe waterways and retag them with type=waterway. As soon as this is done, you'll be right. ... but be prepared that others will blame you that you're using a bot. SCNR ;-) Regards Werner _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
