I would tag it as a waterway in tunnel (though I have no idea about a suitable
value) oras water area with covered=yes and natural=bare_rock area mapped, both
with a proper tags.
It also sounds like it is a tourism=attraction .
Sounds a bit similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Hole_(Red_Sea)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Hole_(Red_Sea)> - thoughthis one is
entirely underwater and of a different origin.
7. Oct 2018 19:11 by pla16...@gmail.com <mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>:
> I've encountered a feature called, in English, "Witch's Cauldron" (also
> "Witches Cauldron" and "Witch's Pit") and> called, in Welsh, "Pwll y Wrach."
> It was mapped by somebody else around 4 years ago and the mapping has> one
> definite error and a couple of things that may be wrong. The problem is I'm
> not sure what the correct> mapping would be.
> It's here: >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3200691239#map=18/52.07127/-4.77079
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3200691239#map=18/52.07127/-4.77079https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3200691239#map=18/52.07127/-4.77079>
> It's a complicated geological feature. I've yet to come across any
> description of this particular feature that> gives a name for that type of
> feature, and perhaps there isn't one. The only way I can describe it is by
> the> processes that led to it. It once consisted of a stratum of soft rock
> at sea level, overlain by harder rock.> Tidal erosion formed a cave by
> removing the soft rock, leaving a layer of hard rock forming the roof.
> Eventually,> part of the roof collapsed. The result is a hole in the ground
> with sea water at the bottom, with a tunnel from
> the hole to the sea. Depending upon the state of the tide it's possible to
> traverse the tunnel from the sea to> the hole (but only in something like a
> kayak, nothing larger).
> It's been mapped as an area of natural=water (no other tags). In the centre
> of the water is a node tagged> natural=arch, which is not an arch at all.
> The arch is about 25m NW of that node. OS OpenData StreetView> (available as
> background imagery in iD and possibly in other editors) shows a thick, grey
> dashed line> connecting the water in the hole to the coast's high water mark
> and nearby are the words "Natural Arch."
> It currently shows a tributary of nearby river connecting the hole in the
> ground. Such an interpretation is> not backed up by the OS or ESRI
> backgrounds (Bing is too unclear to cast any light on the issue). Nor> is
> this backed up by any description of the feature I've found.
>
> So natural=arch is in the wrong place. Arguably it should be a closed way
> covering the water passage
> underneath, possibly with layer=1. The tributary that isn't visible in OS
> should be removed. And some sort> of water should be mapped (whether it
> renders or not, just for routeing) under the arch connecting sea to> hole in
> the ground. But what sort of water? And what additional tag to use for the
> water in the hole? It's> not really a pond, it's part of the sea.
>
> I can't think of a good way to do it. The least bad train of thought I had
> was how it would be mapped if the> arch collapsed. In that case the HWM
> would extend inland to encompass the hole in the ground, which might> perhaps
> be tagged as a cove, because that's what it would be. So why not do that
> with a natural=arch over it?
> Any better ideas? If nobody can come up with anything convincing, I'll leave
> it alone and pretend I never saw> it. :)
> --
> Paul
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
