Actually I'm not familiar with fish passes. Could any one provide more sample images? And one question: Could a fish pass look like a short and very narrow canal like the images in this pages?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acequia 2018-07-19 9:15 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > The 'fish passes' I am familiar with are all man made, they provide fish a > way around weirs, dams and locks. > They certainly are not intended for human transportation and should not > provide a lot of water flow. > They are different from spillways, canals and other man made waterways, > they are not a sub class to them. > If they are not to be considered part of the waterway key then possibly > they can be added to the key man_made. > > > On 19/07/18 17:57, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > > 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 > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
