On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > All of this together has its origin in the fact that in the UK and > > other early OSM countries large artificial waterways are almost > > always for navigation and small artificial waterways are almost > > always for transporting away undesirable water. > > +1 > That’s my analysis as well. What do you think, shouldn’t we fix the > wiki to make it more universally applicable to all kinds of > waterways?
As usual i don't think you can change the definition of tags that are already used hundreds of thousands of times except by extending their scope which would make the tags more vague than they already are. What would make sense is to explicitly mention that waterway=canal does not have a lower size. Inventing a separate tagging scheme for irrigation systems might be an option too but irrigation is performed in very different ways in different parts of the world so it might not be too easy to create an universal tagging system for that. > The canal definition was changed in March 2018, before it said to use > canal only for „the largest waterways created for irrigation > purposes“ Yes, that was the obvious attempt to expand the narrow scheme to other parts of the world in a superficial way oriented at the standard style rendering but not at the actual semantics. Going this route would essentially mean turning all of ditch/drain/canal into one big uniform catch-all. Removing the above is the attempt to salvage some of the semantic value in the data. Not sure how successful that is without support from the standard style though. Unfortunately waterway=canal has only 13k combinations with width=* and only 1.8k combinations with usage=* at the moment. Extending that would be the best way to move forward IMO. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
