In case of waterway=fish_pass I think that a new waterway is OK as
- it is drastically different from other defined waterways- is not a navigable
waterway
- is not redefining already mapped objects
17. Lipiec 2018 23:04 od fl.infosrese...@gmail.com
<mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
> A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here :>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass>
> While writing >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies
>
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies>>
> it was asked to not clutter waterway=* with spillway since it was a
> specific usage of a man made canal.> Such ideas lead to separate waterway
> nature, usage and sometimes supporting infrastructure to get a tagging model
> with 3 different corresponding keys.> A comprehensive table of waterways
> natures has been set here : >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values>
>
> May it be great to consider usage=fish_pass with waterway=* (canal,
> presumably) for sake of consistency?
> Feel free to read and comment on the Talk page
> All the best
> François
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
