Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Jul 2018, at 07:23, Yves  wrote:
> 
> Ah, and I have a waterway=lift, fish=yes nearby :)


there are also bigger ones: 
http://www.wna-berlin.de/fotogalerie/bauwerke_anlagen/schleusen_hebewerke/shw_niederfinow/bau_2016/6_juni/nifi_2016-06_013.jpg

Cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Andrew Davidson]

On 21/07/18 15:23, Yves wrote:

Ah, and I have a waterway=lift, fish=yes nearby :)


And let's not forget fish public transit:

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fish_passage/about_dams_and_fish/trap_and_haul.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Yves]

Ah, and I have a waterway=lift, fish=yes nearby :)
https://www.google.com/search?q=orbe+ascenseur+a+poisson&hl=fr-CH&source=android-browser&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTx97MuK_cAhVEVywKHbOlCk0Q_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=518#imgrc=Luw0xusYIWLRUM:

Yves


Le 21 juillet 2018 00:55:34 GMT+02:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 a écrit :
>On 20 July 2018 at 23:23, Richard  wrote:
>
>>
>> indeed and as they are getting more widespread more variations can be
>> expected.
>>
>
>One was mentioned near here last week that they have installed a full
>on
>lock for fish to bypass a weir.
>
>They swim into a chamber through the bottom gate which automatically
>closes
>after x minutes, fills with water then the top gate opens to allow the
>fish
>to swim out & proceed up river.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 20 July 2018 at 23:23, Richard  wrote:

>
> indeed and as they are getting more widespread more variations can be
> expected.
>

One was mentioned near here last week that they have installed a full on
lock for fish to bypass a weir.

They swim into a chamber through the bottom gate which automatically closes
after x minutes, fills with water then the top gate opens to allow the fish
to swim out & proceed up river.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Richard]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:16:57AM +0200, Yves wrote:
> You'd be *very* surprised what shapes fish passes can take.
> I don't think it's a good idea to use the waterway key to tell that whatever 
> feature is intended to be a fish pass. 
> This one, although man made is definitely a river, that was built as 1) a 
> fish pass, 2} a whitewater course. 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/45.84919/5.41420

indeed and as they are getting more widespread more variations can be
expected.

Recently a small river nearby was converted to a fishpass where a weir
was previously. Thus it is definitely a river and a fishpass at the
same time and I have seen kayakers going down there.

So using a particular watervay value is no longer fitting but at the same 
time I don't like using more and more top-level keys to describe particular
properties of waterways if there is no reason to believe that for example
the fish_ass property will be ever useful to any non-waterway object.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-07-19 11:16 GMT+02:00 Yves :

> You'd be *very* surprised what shapes fish passes can take.
> I don't think it's a good idea to use the waterway key to tell that
> whatever feature is intended to be a fish pass.
> This one, although man made is definitely a river, that was built as 1) a
> fish pass, 2} a whitewater course.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/45.84919/5.41420
>



if it is "definitely a river", why did it have to be "built as fish pass"?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[ael]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 08:57:28AM +0100, 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?

A fish pass near me is quite different to any other sort of waterway:
the nearest 'usage' might be a spillway. But what is the main tag?

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/07/2018 22:04, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi all,

A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass



Ignoring the wiki, what non-waterway tags are used for fish_pass in 
OSM?  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fish_pass#values will 
show the usage of the value, but I bet lots of local / different 
language names are also in use.


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.


Indeed, but when I last looked waterway=spillway had enough usage in the 
database for me to render it.  Not saying whether that's "correct" 
tagging or not, but it was in use (at least a bit).


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[François Lacombe]

2018-07-19 9:30 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Yves]

You'd be *very* surprised what shapes fish passes can take.
I don't think it's a good idea to use the waterway key to tell that whatever 
feature is intended to be a fish pass. 
This one, although man made is definitely a river, that was built as 1) a fish 
pass, 2} a whitewater course. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/45.84919/5.41420

Le 19 juillet 2018 10:43:23 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 19. Jul 2018, at 10:22, Javier Sánchez Portero
> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>
>
>it is not so much about what it looks like, but about the purpose it
>was built for. Are fishes using those canals?
>
>Often (?) they might provide kind a steps so greater heights can be
>passed: 
>http://www.htsbau.de/.cm4all/iproc.php/Button/FAH%20technisch.jpg/downsize_1280_0/FAH%20technisch.jpg
>
>http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/70/Fischtreppe_Isar_bei_Pullach.jpg
>
>wikipedia has a lot of examples as well:
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder
>
>Cheers,
>Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Jul 2018, at 10:22, Javier Sánchez Portero  
> wrote:
> 
> 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


it is not so much about what it looks like, but about the purpose it was built 
for. Are fishes using those canals?

Often (?) they might provide kind a steps so greater heights can be passed: 
http://www.htsbau.de/.cm4all/iproc.php/Button/FAH%20technisch.jpg/downsize_1280_0/FAH%20technisch.jpg

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/70/Fischtreppe_Isar_bei_Pullach.jpg

wikipedia has a lot of examples as well: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder

Cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Jul 2018, at 10:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If they are not to be considered part of the waterway key then possibly they 
> can be added to the key man_made.


IMHO they should go into waterway, human transportation is not required for 
waterway, think about streams or ditches.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

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 :
>
>> 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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Warin]

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 >:


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 list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

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 :

> 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 list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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] waterway=fish_pass consistency

[François Lacombe]

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