Talk:Harbour

Contents 1 Naming convention 2 Naming conventions of hydraulic structures 3 Harbour Wall with walkwall and/or service road 4 Is this a proposal? 5 'Destroyed' page

Naming convention

Why the tag web is used instead of website or url?

Why the tag harbour:namenational is used instead of harbour:nat_name?

User 5359 18:33, 24 October 2010 (BST)

Naming conventions of hydraulic structures

please see a definition suggestion on Talk:Proposed_features/Breakwater --HeikoE 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Harbour Wall with walkwall and/or service road

Is this a pier or not? In some places on the wiki it appears it is, in other's it seems not. --Pobice 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal?

What exactly is this page? Is it a proposal page, or just a page some user created on a whim? It seems to contain a mixture of approved and proposed features, as well as a number of brand new ideas ("material=*", "harbour:*=*", additions to mooring=* and leisure=slipway). There are also a ton of spelling mistakes and other errors. If this is what users are using to provide guidance on tagging of harbour areas, then we're in big trouble.--Alester 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance at it and I see incorrect and unhelpful terms being used such as 'footbridge or raft' for a floating man_made=pier and gate for a waterway=lock_gate. There is also loads of detail which is of no benefit. Why do we need to know the German for 'breakwater' in an English article about harbours? Can I suggest that we just chop this down to a much briefer article here covering the agreed elements with a section at the end covering stuff which is not agreed. Any objections? I guess we could float any obvious concrete and relevant proposals off to the Proposed_features section, including the habour:* stuff but a lot of it has very little value. PeterIto 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And another comment. The article is inconsistent with a long section on value for Category=* (which is a very poor generic tag name) and then I notice that the same list of values are proposed for habour:category=* lower down the article. Very sloppy. PeterIto 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have now moved the article as it stood to Proposed_features/Harbour and have then chopped 14K out of this page on the basis that the removed content was either not agreed, or was out of scope or was already better covered in another article to which there is a link. I will do some more work on it in the near future. I think that is justified on the basis that question I asked on the page 6 months ago haven't been responded to. PeterIto 00:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Harbour is not a "proposal" ;-) - It is used since three years :-) It is a "theme-page" covering all around harbours, intended to help mappers to understand the specific things around, and to avoid misunderstandings about nautical terms in different languages. Therefore the page uses pictures to explain the meaning of tags understandable and nonambiguous. The page was build in German and translated to English, and from English to French, Italian, Japan, and now Portuguese. By the last changes of the English page, the Portuguese translation did become wrong. Please don't change the English page without an agreement to the German one. Thanks, --Markus 09:18, 25 April 2012 (BST)

Thank you for responding Marcus. In defense of my edits, I would like to point out that:

• Firstly, it was my view that there was a huge amount of content that did not fit with mapping harbours, much of which seemed to not be related to more general marine matters. See Category:Features for examples of how other feature pages focus on providing a quick introduction to the feature in question.

• The article spent a lot of time describing what features were. If you look at other OSM articles they focus on how to map the feature, not on the feature itself - a link to Wikipedia is provided if appropriate for people who want to understand what is being mapped. The OSM wiki may however include a brief clarification of names used in different places for the OSM feature and other possibly confusions (or example to clarify what is meant by 'pier' in OSM tagging compared to local terms in use around the world).

• I was concerned about all the red-links to non-existent wiki pages, even for the 'harbour' tag which seems pretty central to the subject!

• I noted that no one had responded to the concerns raised on this wiki talk page from October 2010 and from December 2011.

• There were many example of features in the harbour namespace, all of which were red-links incidentally, which seemed to ignore other more appropriate tags. For example, why use harbour:phone, not phone=*. Has 'habour:size' really been through any discussion? The terms 'big', 'medium', 'small' and 'very small' appear to leave too much to the judgement. If these are really the correct terms, then more information should be given on how to use them. I note that the terms are said to originate from the World Ports Index, but the external link at the bottom of the OSM wiki page to the 'World Ports Index' is broken. Incidentally, there is an earlier comment on this talk page asking why the tag is 'harbour:web' is recommended, and the conventional OSM tags of website=*, url=* and wikipedia=* are not used.

• There were many confusing and obsolete terms described in the article. For example:

1) The top image had entries in the key for: "Harbour jetty with pier inside" and "Footbridge or raft". This seems to imply that a jetty and a pier are different in OSM and they are not. It also introduces the terms 'footbridge' and 'raft' which are actually tagged as 'pier' in OSM, if I understand the suggested use of footbridge.

2) Then there was the comment that "A pier is a mostly filled up and made of concrete landing place that is perpendicular to the coastline or to an other pier". That is not what a man_made=pier is in OSM.

3) For a Jetty the description was "A jetty is a filled up and/or made of concrete wall with connection to the land. It serves as coastal protection or infrequently as a connection to an island. Also a harbor wall is called jetty but not every jetty is a harbour wall". Nope, the term Jetty is not used in OSM, see Pier.

4) Then there was a description for 'footbridge', although the link to Wikipedia is to the article on a 'Wharf'. The text on the OSM wiki read "A footbridge - previously called man_made=pier - is a hard wharf that is build on piles of concrete or wood underneath the water can flow. As a connection over the water (see also landing-stage) or as a jetty for vessels. It could be a small footbridge for boats or a huge building on which reside houses or even complete amusement parks. In American English a larger footbridge is sometimes called "pier", and a smaller one sometimes(!) called a jetty." Nope, in OSM the term pier is used to cover these.

5) The landing stage description was equally muddled. For a start the wikipedia link for 'landing stage' is to 'Pier'. The OSM wiki section read: "A Landing-stage is an access to a landing place made of piles of concrete or wood, sometimes of cast-iron or filled up. It is used as a bridgeover of shallow water to a place with with reasonable water depth. The landing-stage in the subterranean water is mostly filled up or a platform on piles or a swimming ponton. See also "footbridge"." What on earth is that meant to mean?

6) I could go on with a critique of the sections for 'raft', 'pontoon', 'landing-stage', 'platform' etc

As such.. can I politely suggest that we work to improve the article, and not just revert!

-- PeterIto 08:03, 26 April 2012 (BST)

• I was expecting some sort of response from Markus on the above who many some very specific comments which I have responded to in detail. Should I take silence as acceptance? PeterIto 22:08, 2 May 2012 (BST)

'Destroyed' page

Why was this page "destroyed" by somehow splitting it and moving the relevant parts to another location (the proposal) that nobody can find the information anymore? All other languages give a detailed description but just the English one is useless. The habour tags are in uses for a long time and IMO it is otiosely to create a proposal for a tag being already in use. Rahra 15:12, 7 May 2012 (BST)

I have provided detailing reasons for my changes to the page in the previous section. Could you please respond to my points individually. Thanks. PeterIto 11:13, 8 May 2012 (BST)

Can people please engage constructively in the development of this article and not just leave negative comments and run! There have been a number of examples of this recently. I responded to the earlier criticism in detail and got no response, and now I get another comment and again no response. PeterIto 13:47, 10 May 2012 (BST)