+1 I would even go for highway=fairway to route over an area, instead of the currently used invisible highway=path.
Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 12 feb. 2019 om 13:49 schreef Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com >: > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see > how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or > seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a > response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note > should be removed. > > I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we > can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is > not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a > preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not, > however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that > requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying > to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable > route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route > in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway > describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys." > > Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated > for use on such routes anyway. > > Dave > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:00 PM Fernando Trebien < > fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry to bring this back so much time later. I just want to confirm a >> detail. >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:34 AM Multi Modaal <multimod...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > I could go along with the extension of the definition of >> waterway=canal to >> > > cover also navigation channels in larger bodies of water, if this >> solution >> > > is accepted as a result of voting process on a formal proposal. >> Personally >> > > I prefer a new tag for nautical or navigation channels. >> > I agree that a new tag (waterway=lake seems fine to me) would be >> better, but until that is formally proposed and widely accepted by data >> users I see no advantage in banning current practice which is also in >> concordance with the wiki for instance waterway=fairway (fairway on a lake >> is added as an addition to waterway=canal/river ) >> >> Since 27 March 2018, the wiki [1] says that waterway=fairway is >> "questioned and conflicts with seamark:type=fairway", but I think this >> is not correct. The wiki also states that waterway=fairway should be >> used on ways and that seamark:type=fairway should be used on closed >> ways, so I believe that a complete description includes both a >> navigable area and a line through it (which is typically a requirement >> for routing). >> >> If you agree, I think the conflict note should be removed from the wiki. >> >> Regards, >> >> [1] >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Generic:Map_Features:waterway >> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects >> >> -- >> Fernando Trebien >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > Dave Swarthout > Homer, Alaska > Chiang Mai, Thailand > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
