Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 02:33, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
> has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
>

Here are some examples of tags as "waterway feature" + type=hazard
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-28.0981/153.4583 (only visible
in "Edit" mode, as white markers)

No documentation that I can find though?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

hazard=yes is neither banned nor discouraged.  It was simply not included
in the list of proposed approved tags due to objections raised during the
RFC.  The goal was to approve the hazard tagging that everyone agreed on.
Since hazard=yes has some existing tagging (>600 uses), it would still be
appropriate to document its use - it would just be listed as "in use"
rather than "approved" on its wiki page.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 12:21 PM ael via Tagging 
wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >
> > Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep
> > rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers
> > are also tagged this way, e.g. waterway=dam and waterway=weir. Tagging
> > waterway=rapids on a node allows rapids to be tagged like other waterway
> > barriers to travel and similar to waterfalls.
>
> Noone, AIUI, is suggesting otherwise. But in some cases, there may be a
> case for adding hazard=yes.
>
> Other issue with the current wiki entry is that hazard=yes is
> discouraged (banned?), in which case we get an awkward duplication like
> hazard=rapids. Maybe in such a case, one could be more specific
> like hazard=drowning, hazard=rocks, or whatever.
>
> Weirs are another case where some are much more dangerous than others,
> and some may warrant a hazard tag as well. Again a case where
> hazard=yes would be appropriate.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 17:08 +, ael via Tagging wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the
> > hazard key
> > has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
> 
> Not in my part of the world. Why try to restrict the scope
> artificially?
> Hazard in British English (and all other dialects, I suspect) is a
> general term with no particular connotation with roads or even paths.
> Why force us to invent a new tag "hazard_not_on_a_highway" ???
> 
Very true, but if you a a canoeist then rapids are an attraction not a
hazard at all.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> 
> Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep
> rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers
> are also tagged this way, e.g. waterway=dam and waterway=weir. Tagging
> waterway=rapids on a node allows rapids to be tagged like other waterway
> barriers to travel and similar to waterfalls.

Noone, AIUI, is suggesting otherwise. But in some cases, there may be a
case for adding hazard=yes.

Other issue with the current wiki entry is that hazard=yes is
discouraged (banned?), in which case we get an awkward duplication like
hazard=rapids. Maybe in such a case, one could be more specific
like hazard=drowning, hazard=rocks, or whatever.

Weirs are another case where some are much more dangerous than others,
and some may warrant a hazard tag as well. Again a case where
hazard=yes would be appropriate.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[ael via Tagging]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
> has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.

Not in my part of the world. Why try to restrict the scope artificially?
Hazard in British English (and all other dialects, I suspect) is a
general term with no particular connotation with roads or even paths.
Why force us to invent a new tag "hazard_not_on_a_highway" ???

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Volker Schmidt]

There are area hazards around, like shooting ranges, and high electric
fields around radio transmitters, and more likely others.

I am not insisting on using the hazard key - I only noted similarities.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 17:33, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
> has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
>
> Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep
> rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers
> are also tagged this way, e.g. waterway=dam and waterway=weir. Tagging
> waterway=rapids on a node allows rapids to be tagged like other waterway
> barriers to travel and similar to waterfalls.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:36 AM Tomas Straupis 
> wrote:
>
>> 2020-12-17, kt, 00:02 ael via Tagging rašė:
>> > This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
>> > hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding
>> hazard=rapids
>> > although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
>> > not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.
>>
>>   Note that rapid does not necessarily have to be interpreted as
>> hazard. If prominent on the ground it can be one of orienting points
>> (with bridges, settlements, intakes etc.) - to cover distance
>> covered/remaining. We have a lot of "small rapids" which can be easily
>> passed with no risk even with babies and they're still marked for
>> orienting purposes.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.

Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep
rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers
are also tagged this way, e.g. waterway=dam and waterway=weir. Tagging
waterway=rapids on a node allows rapids to be tagged like other waterway
barriers to travel and similar to waterfalls.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:36 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-17, kt, 00:02 ael via Tagging rašė:
> > This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
> > hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
> > although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
> > not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.
>
>   Note that rapid does not necessarily have to be interpreted as
> hazard. If prominent on the ground it can be one of orienting points
> (with bridges, settlements, intakes etc.) - to cover distance
> covered/remaining. We have a lot of "small rapids" which can be easily
> passed with no risk even with babies and they're still marked for
> orienting purposes.
>
> ___
> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Tomas Straupis]

2020-12-17, kt, 00:02 ael via Tagging rašė:
> This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
> hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
> although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
> not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.

  Note that rapid does not necessarily have to be interpreted as
hazard. If prominent on the ground it can be one of orienting points
(with bridges, settlements, intakes etc.) - to cover distance
covered/remaining. We have a lot of "small rapids" which can be easily
passed with no risk even with babies and they're still marked for
orienting purposes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[stevea]

I'm not sure how long it is, but California's Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast 
(a fairly well known, well loved road) has some equivalently lengthy (or 
longer) winding road signs I've seen.  If anyone cares to Mapillary-sniff, I 
recall one near Carmel Highlands (near the "pink hotel?") and another further 
south, near McWay Falls or is it more near JFBSP?  Esalen?  Definitely seen 
some around there).  Northbound you might have to look around Cambria, I don't 
often approach from that side (northbound).  Long, sinuous roads do happen and 
are sometimes even signed.  I think that despite how famous this drive is 
(about as well-driven as Yosemite National Park in summer), you don't want to 
be in a 12-meter motorhome on this road and not know what the next 200 
kilometers are going to be like (windy and very few places to pull over or park 
such a behemoth). Still, such "big traffic" (giant Recreational Vehicles) do 
make this trek.  Such a sign might make someone think twice and I think that's 
part of the reason Caltrans erects them.  And nobody likes getting stuck behind 
a slow, giant RV.

> On Dec 16, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:24, Brian M. Sperlongano  
> wrote:

> Thanks for the comments!  For the specific linked case (winding road for 
> 74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal - 
> hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74 consecutive 
> miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth of ways in 
> this way.
> 
> & we'll have to do the same for this! :-)
> 
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BPN0FY/warning-sign-on-the-eyre-highway-across-the-nullarbor-plain-western-BPN0FY.jpg

And the Nullarbor Plain (love that name) I think also famously has the longest 
straight stretch of railway on Earth.  I'd tend to say "railroad," US English 
being my mother tongue, "railroad" for "railway" being a US English dialect 
marker.  Like holding up three fingers in a certain way.  Or Ex-Wye-Zed vs. 
Ex-Wye-Zee.  It's a big world.  Lots of long, straight roads, lots of long, 
windy roads.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:24, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for the comments!  For the specific linked case (winding road for
> 74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal -
> hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74
> consecutive miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth
> of ways in this way.
>

& we'll have to do the same for this! :-)

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BPN0FY/warning-sign-on-the-eyre-highway-across-the-nullarbor-plain-western-BPN0FY.jpg

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Volker,

Thanks for the comments!  For the specific linked case (winding road for
74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal -
hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74
consecutive miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth
of ways in this way.

With regard to perceived hazards, and degrees of hazards, these are clearly
interesting and complex topics.  I don't know how to address them, but I
like that you're breaking down the problem in a systematic way.  I'm
intrigued and interested in hearing more and/or collaborating on the
topic.  I think we would need to examine a handful of examples to really
understand the space.

That said, I don't think the lack of a generalized approach towards
signed/unsigned/graded hazards should prevent us from formalizing the
30,000 usages of the hazard key.  Mappers have "voted with their tagging"
and we should respect that unless there is a strong reason not to.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:30 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Brian,
> I am trying to put order in this also in  my own mind.
> I think we should have an approach which is already clearly structured
> towards two things
> A the difference between
> - signposted hazards
> - unsigned hazards perceived by the mappers
> B for hazards that may have different degrees of hazardness (like the
> difficulty classes of hiking paths, MTB tracks, rapids,...)
> we should have solutions that allow a basic tagging plus the option of
> classes of hazardness for advanced mappers
>
> This approach should be put in the hazard proposal, even if at the moment
> the proposal only covers signposted hazards.
>
> Volker
>
> PS be prepared: how do we tag a hazard like this.
> 
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 23:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have
>> strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others
>> do.  However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should
>> be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of
>> usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
>> be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
>> we have to start somewhere.
>>
>> So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!
>>
>> There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
>> base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
>> from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
>> usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
>> usage.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>> > 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 strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
>>> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
>>> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
>>> tags.
>>>
>>> This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
>>> hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
>>> although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
>>> not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.
>>>
>>> ael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[stevea]

I'm "one more OSM Contributor" volunteering my opinion here.  I voted for the 
hazard proposal as is, although my vote included the note that "this proposal 
is a solid foundation for the (hazard) syntax of both today and tomorrow."

There are such things:  OSM has many examples of where we begin something that 
is a well-thought-out sketch (or more, yet still recognizable as 
not-quite-complete) and then grows to a mature example of itself.  Perfection 
should not be the enemy of the good.  This is at least a good proposal, I'd 
even say "excellent," especially in its efforts to be comprehensive.  I say 
this neither to discourage the continuing good dialog here, nor the growth of 
"hazard" (syntax, wiki, usage in the map data...) into the future, but rather 
in harmony with those.  This puts me in agreement with Brian as he says 
"consider this proposal a starting point."  I'm saying "it's at least a good 
one, I'll even go 'excellent.'"

I believe the more voices we hear, the better.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[Volker Schmidt]

Brian,
I am trying to put order in this also in  my own mind.
I think we should have an approach which is already clearly structured
towards two things
A the difference between
- signposted hazards
- unsigned hazards perceived by the mappers
B for hazards that may have different degrees of hazardness (like the
difficulty classes of hiking paths, MTB tracks, rapids,...)
we should have solutions that allow a basic tagging plus the option of
classes of hazardness for advanced mappers

This approach should be put in the hazard proposal, even if at the moment
the proposal only covers signposted hazards.

Volker

PS be prepared: how do we tag a hazard like this.





On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 23:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have
> strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others
> do.  However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should
> be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of
> usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
> be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
> we have to start somewhere.
>
> So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!
>
> There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
> base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
> from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
> usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
> usage.
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> > 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 strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
>> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
>> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
>> tags.
>>
>> This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
>> hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
>> although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
>> not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.
>>
>> ael
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have
strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others
do.  However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should
be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of
usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
we have to start somewhere.

So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!

There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
usage.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging 
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > 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 strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
> tags.
>
> This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
> hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
> although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
> not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.
>
> ael
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[ael via Tagging]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> 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 strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
tags.

This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.

ael



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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Volker Schmidt]

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 
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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

+1

IMHO these are complementary.  waterway=rapids can be tagged from overhead
imagery, and the additional detail of the rapids can be added later by
people with subject matter expertise.

I see this as equivalent to sac_scale=* for hiking trails - it does not
replace the underlying highway=path, it adds more detail as to the type of
path.

Since both taggings are in use (and one is approved), it is appropriate to
document both.  If someone thinks that waterway=rapids should be
deprecated, I think the burden would be on them to propose that.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:58 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
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