Going back to the original example, I would say, not only the lock but the entire cut, in particular way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243353333 should be tagged as waterway=canal. This scheme applies to most river-lock arrangements, the "cuts" are nearly almost artificial canals. At least this seems obvious to me for those cases were the "natural" river bed is still there but blocked by a weir, and the the navigation channel goes through a lock using an "artificial" canal.
But I also see problems with this approach regarding the distinction between natural bed and artificial canals. If we take one of the biggest rivers in Europe: The Rhine downstream from Basel and to Bingen has been re-bedded nearly completely (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Rhine) and, by the above arguments, should be re-tagged as canal, which seems absurd. So maybe the concepts ar not as well defined as I thought. On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 18:18, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 12:03, Dave F via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit : > >> The water flowing through it is still river water. >> > > Many artificial man made infrastructure involve natural water taken from > rivers and streams. > The point of waterway isn't only to tag water but the kind of way it is > flowing in (without dealing with usage which is adressed with usage=*) > > Lock sections don't get "canal" as name but "lock". > Then waterway=canal + lock=yes sounds correct > > 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
