2018-07-19 9:30 GMT+02:00 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 > I'm very surprised to read you in such way When waterway=spillway was proposed, you stood for not cluttering waterway with more values. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies#Data_consumers_concern "Drastically different" is subjective, furthermore not consistent with what was discussed for spillways a few months ago. waterway=canal isn't navigable in all situations, precisely depending on usage=* The point is both spillway and fish_pass are usages of a given construction channeling water, not a proper waterway nature. And now I thank people who make the past proposal move and distinguish between waterways natures and usages. Does anyone think fish_pass can be installed in this table? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values All the best François
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
