Talk:Water feature

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Being quite new to OpenStreetMap, I might have misunderstood something, but it was my understanding that this type of descriptions should primarily go on the Key:waterway page. I could easily transfer the information on this page to that page and make this page a redirect to Key:waterway, but I wished to make sure that this page does not serve any purpose that I have not understood. --sanna 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yes your understanding was right. The reason that this wasn't on the Key:waterway page till now is simple that noone took care of it yet. We changed the way the Keys / Tags are listed in the wiki not long ago and a lot of cleanup need to be done.
So if you see some other things where you feel informations are missing or wrong, feel free to change it. --Etric Celine 12:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Key:waterway

As discussed on Talk:Mapping/Features there are many cases where pages under this naming structure are introducing unnecessary duplication. This page is one of them.

The description appearing on this page was recently copied over to Key:waterway anyway. This then provokes discussions over there, such as this one: Talk:Key:waterway#Really small waterways questioning the '<3 metres is a stream' declaration that somebody originally made on this page. But really if you're writing things which are defining how tags are to be used... that information should be going under the Key or Tag pages, where the primary definition should be laid out.

Does that make this page redundant? well yes I think so.

-- Harry Wood 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this page does not fall under the heading "things that share a common denominator that at the same time does not share a common key", which if I understand it correctly was the original motivator for keeping these descriptions. So I strongly agree that this page should be merged with Key:waterway.--sanna 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now converted it to a disambiguation page. PeterIto 09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


I have re-created this article with a wider variety of summary information across rivers, lakes, sea/land , harbours, reservoirs etc, linking into the 'key' pages for the detail. I think it will be useful, but does need more work which I will be doing in the near future. I completely agree that we should avoid duplicating content. PeterIto 08:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest the rename to Water Features (or similar if you can think of something better) as a posed to Waterways. The page is useful in it's current incarnation bringing together tags for all land based water features, not just Waterways Martin Renvoize 11:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I have now created a Waterways article now. I suggest that we consider demoting this article to a disambiguation page in due course and remove it from 'features'. PeterIto 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now converted it to a disambiguation page. PeterIto 09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected both this page and the Water page to the Waterways article, and copied any new content from this article to it. PeterIto 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Rework and move to 'Water'?

I have just completed a major rework of the categorisation for the many articles which were in 'water features' and allocated them to one or more of the following subcategories as appropriate:

  • Coastline, which includes wetlands, harbours, groynes, breakwaters, beaches, beach_resorts and cliffs, in other words anything primarily found along the shoreline.
  • Harbour, including marinas, naval bases and other places where ships and boats seek shelter
  • Marine navigation, for anything used to help a ship or boat at sea
  • category:Seamap (which doesn't have an associated article and which I am going to propose is changed to Marine) which covers anything else related to the sea that is not coastal or related to navigation.
  • Water management, for piped water, drinking fountains, reservoirs and waste water treatment plant etc
  • Waterways, which include rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs etc)

What I would like to do now is move 'water feature' to 'water' which I feel is a more satisfactory over-aching category and article title for all of the above.

Any thoughts?

-- PeterIto 13:23, 6 June 2012 (BST)