Hello I personally prefer a few main values in the waterway to define the general cases and subtags for specific cases like this, of the type of usage = fiss_pass. If I am in front of an infrastructure of this type, its physical characteristics will allow me to distinguish if it is a channel, ditch or brook. If it was built for the purpose of fish passing it is a separate issue. Are a fish_pass different in nature to any other waterway? Waterway different in it's construction nature could be used as a fish_pass? If the answers to this questions are no and yes, put the fish_pass value apart of the main waterway key. This form seems simpler and more versatile to me.
By the way: in the table of values added to the wiki there is a strange blank gap between the blue cells of ditch/brook and pressurised. Also the culvert cell is misaligned with respect to the cave cell and others. Is this intentional and has a meaning or an error when constructing the table that can be corrected? Regards, Javier 2018-07-19 8:30 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > 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: > > > Hi all, > > A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass > > While writing 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 > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
