On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:55 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > usually you would try to go in a straight line though, unless there are other > factors like scenic highlights or currents, that seem worth the detour. > I’m not opposing marking these with additional tags, but I would not expect > them to have fundamentally different tagging. Let’s keep it simple. This is > no different to a walking route crossing a square.
Ordinarily, a walking route will not have a way without other tags, and in general we handle the issue by continuing a footway or crossing across the square. We don't have *any* way in common use to tag the water portion of a canoe route. 'route=canoe' on the relation leaves an untagged way, and a lot of rendering chains discard untagged ways early once they've extracted the ones that are members of multipolygons. I'm fine with 'fairway' - it's a recognized tag, in use, and the proposed interpretation is a logical extension to its meaning. Requiring 'fairway' to be an area makes sense in the 'big vessel and developed harbour' case, where fairways have defined and charted bounds: 'thou shalt not sail outside this polygon.' But pleasure-boat ways and canoe routes are both much less formal, and to me it makes sense to have a way marking the centre line of an indefinite fairway. I know that it goes against the Wiki, but the Wiki is definitely tilted toward the 'developed harbour and big vessel' case - its language is clearly an attempt to mirror the IHO S100 standard. What Dave wants to map are waterways far too small to get the attention of the International Organization for Hydrography. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
