I see this subject directly related to the "hazard" discussion in the sense that I suggested to clearly define the difference between signposted hazards/dangers/warnings and un-signed such situations that are observable on the ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement. With other words, beyond the question of how to map it, there is also the question of what is a rapid or any other hazard. I would like to have a scheme for both situations, i.e. one scheme would be for mapping signs for officially posted hazards, the other scheme would be for hazards that the mapper sees on the ground, but without signposting. In the signposted case the mapper has no role in assessing the presence or not of the actual hazard, whereas in the second case we need to establish how to avoid wildly different meanings of the same tagging. I'm familiar with two similar problems: mountain hiking and MTB routes. We have tags for the level of difficulty for both of them (which are directly related to the possible hazard). I use mountain paths and I ride a normal touring bike off-asphalt. I can distinguish between, say, the lowest two levels of difficulty in both cases, but not the higher levels, simply because I would not go there. So, transferring that to the rapids,: I can see a rapid in a river, but cannot access its grade of difficulty (and I am also lacking the knowledge of how much a river changes with the seasons and the weather). I am a bit digressing from the posed question, but I think that should also be taken into account.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the year 2020 waterway=rapids has been added a couple hundred times, > and the other two tags whitewater:section_grade and whitewater:rapid_grade > have been used about 100 times each: > https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/whitewater:rapid_grade/&***/whitewater:section_grade/&***/waterway/rapids > (zoom in to the most recent yet) > > I think both tagging methods have their use. The tag waterway=rapids is > great to add to a node to specify that there are rapids here, and the > others are good for expert kayakers and rafters who are able to assess the > rapid grade. > > I don't know enough about the subject to make a proposal to clear things > up, but the existing tags seem to be fine. > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Dec 16, 2020, 19:27 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: >> >> The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the >> information that I had. >> >> That is sign of bad tagging scheme. >> >> I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the >> Wiki. >> >> Is it enough? >> >> I asked here on the mailing list, and the only answers that I got were >> along the lines of "then don't map it." So for several years I haven't >> attempted to map rapids. The ones I know of and want to render, I maintain >> separately from OSM, because the previous discussion had caused me to label >> this feature mentally as, "OSM doesn't want this mapped." >> >> :( Hopefully this can be fixed so this will not happen. >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://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
