Discussion on natural=waterfall
The current proposal is an alteration to the abandoned proposal for a tag waterway = waterfall.
I have suggested that the tagging be changed to natural=waterfall as I can see occasions where a way which is already tagged as waterway=riverbank might wish to be tagged to show it is a waterfall, and currently the support for multiple value for the same key is very limited.
Currently in the database there is no standardisation for this feature, with tags such as feature=waterfall, waterway= waterfall, name = waterfall
- I've encountered a waterfall, or cascade really, that is a thin little brook but it's long, dropping 30 feet over 40 or so feet in a series of small cliffs. It's notable as a natural feature and a sport ice climb in winter. Any suggestions? SuitGuy 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would tag the whole thing as one way, natural=waterfall, (and keep the original waterway=stream). I do this with highway=steps - a path may have many sets of small steps but it is easier to map and easier to see on a map. If someone wants to come back and re-map more accurately, fine. MikeCollinson 11:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I support this proposal. It is surprising that there is no standard tag. It makes sense to be able to add a waterfall attribute without losing a river or stream value. There are already a reasonable number of waterway=waterfall tags out there, ( Show waterway=waterfall on map.edit), but is would be easy just to add the new tag without upsetting anyone. MikeCollinson 11:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I support it too. Katzlbt 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I support the proposition of natural=waterfall. In this definition I would include also rapids, another additional tag seems not necessary to me. The distinction is made by the length of the waterfall and the name given to the waterfall/rapid. --Federico Explorador 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I also support. Around here (in the San Francisco Bay Area), several "waterfall"-like features contain that name and are marked on signs. They aren't Niagra, but they are definitely notable features. Barte 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I support this. The word "way" (from "to carry" through various languages) implies a path, thus navigability. Navigability and "waterfall" are pretty contradictory; if the waterfall is at all notable, it pretty much implies a portage of some sort. I mean, is Yosemite Falls (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/26637639) really a "way"? It is definitely "natural". --MrRedwood 22:30, 19 August 2011 (BST)
- I support the proposal, including as additional value for riverbanks. - Is there a proposal for rendering? --Federico Explorador 23:13, 4 July 2012 (BST)
OK, to make this a bit clearer, I am taking this to RFC and then vote the ordinary way./Johan Jönsson 17:19, 4 September 2012 (BST)
Why stop? If this proposed will approve, the waterway=waterfall are deprecated? Bredy 19:51, 24 settembre 2013
- I'm going to map the Rhine falls in
- As it's mentioned above: Is there a good destinction between a waterfall and rapids then? Ulfl 02:34, 12 July 2007 (BST)
- waterway=waterfall is a logical key/value pair for a node. Water does indeed fall vertically (or near vertically) at a waterfall. waterway=rapids is a logical key/value pair for rapids which are by nature a turbulent stretch of water over distance, there is no one spot where it drops vertically, rather it drops quickly over some distance. Blackadder 09:24, 12 July 2007 (BST)
- Looks good to me MikeCollinson 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using this to map Victoria Falls in Zambia/Zimbabwe. It's definity different from rapids. Since it's about a mile long, I'm using applying this tag to a way. Rorym 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been using this tag for Iguazú Falls in Argentina/Brazil. I wouldn't know how to map it without this tag. I use it for nodes and ways. Geogast 14:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Suits me - I'd add that the line version should follow the convention of uphill to the left Tms13 13 Jan 2009.
Reconcile waterway=waterfall and natural=waterfall ?
For me it looks like those could very well complement each other, mapping different aspects of the waterfall. waterway=waterfall would mark the place (or way) where (along which) water is falling, natural=waterfall the waterfall-cliffs.
Virtually all current use of natural=waterfall are nodes which are not even properly defined in the proposal. The original reason from going from waterway to natural seems to have been that it would make it possible to tag riverbanks as waterfall but riverbanks can now also tagged with natural=water and the current natural=waterfall proposal would mark tag the waterfall-cliffs and not riverbanks anyway. The riverbanks are not falling, water is.
One more thought, instead of taging waterfall cliffs with natural=waterfall, why not mark them with natural=cliff and an additional tag saying they are (more or less) watercovered? This scheme would also make sense for mapping in- or under-water rocks and other natural features in watereways, rapids or oceans. RicoZ (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the text of the proposal "The basic idea of this proposal is to map the cliff the water rushes down from with natural=waterfall. This raises the question, should it also be tagged natural=cliff?" - this would be technically a pain. Easier would be to tag the cliff with a yet to be defined tag like "underwater=yes" or "waterfall_edge=yes". RicoZ (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawing the proposal
The proposal has been made obsolete by the creativity of mappers. Description of current mapping practice is in Waterfalls.