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 <matkoni...@tutanota.com
<mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:
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
<mailto: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
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass>
While writing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies
<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
<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 <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<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
