Talk:Tag:highway=ford
Ford Classifications
Any suggestions by anyone how different categories of fords should be recorded?
For example how would you distinguish the following:
- Surfaced fords at a point such as Barwick Ford
- Irish Bridges at a point, such as Buntingford
- Unsurfaced fords at a point with surfaced approaches, such as Standon
- Unsurfaced fords at a point with unsurfaced approaches, such as Latchford
- Unsurfaced fords running along river beds for a distance, such as Furneaux Pelham (south from this point for about a mile.
- Surfaced fords running along river beds for a distance, such as near Hazel End
- Surfaced tidal roads running in or across the sea (e.g. to Holy Island)
- Unsurfaced tidal roads running in or across the sea (e.g. Maplin Sands)
-- ford=yes is a very good proposal. Joosep-Georg 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
In the short term, I've tried using surface=paved or surface=unpaved against the ford node to indicate whether it is surfaced or not. I'm not sure how an Irish Bridge would be recorded? I think a ford=yes tag against a highway 'way' may work, but it would need to be rendered somehow. Another suggestion for consideration that user:sk53 raised would be the addition of a depth_guage=yes tag to the ford node. Any suggestions would be most welcome.... C2r 22:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here and have no experience about the correct syntax. But I'm missing information like:
- ford_depth=40 (ford is normally 40cm deep)
- ford_remark=* (e.g. "Glacier river. In the morning 30cm deep; in evening 60cm deep)
The depth could important for routing. In the future may different colors possible.
-- Speleo 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ford Rendering
In Mapnik a Ford is rendered by a vehicle ford image. Does somebody knows what are the action to be taken to render the ford by a different symbol when it is on a footpath ? Matclab 16:28, 16 August 2010 (BST)
Not deprecated
Why do users keep editing this page to say this tag is deprecated? The proposed ford=* hasn't yet been approved, so how could highway=ford already be deprecated?--Alester 05:33, 26 August 2012 (BST)
It seems to me that both forms are useful. ford=yes is a good option on a way, where a ford is long enough to justify specific rendering, and highway=ford is adequate on a node for small fords, and easier for contributors to map. I see no ambiguity, and I can't believe it is difficult for renders to handle both options. It's good to ask the question, though, in case we are missing something. If no sensible answer emerges, I would like to see the deprecation comments removed in order to avoid confusion. Perhaps a better option would be something along the lines of: On a way, "highway=*, ford=yes" is to be preferred over "highway=ford". --Peter Reed 10:27, 28 August 2012 (BST)
As there seems to be no objection, after three weeks, I have now removed the suggestion that this form should be deprecated
- The problem with highway=ford is that it leaves no room for the original meaning of the highway tag. Because of this, most renderers and routers do not support it. You don't tag bridges as highway=bridge do you? or tunnels? Or embankments? Or incline? or narrows? A ford is just a property of an otherwise properly tagged highway and should be tagged as such. There is no room for the asinine highway=ford. Then why should we keep it; even for nodes? It has not been 'approved', but there is (soon to be more than) 20 times more ford=yes than highway=ford on ways. And more ford=yes on nodes as it is. And when did highway=ford get 'approved' in the first place? --Gorm 22:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
