There is a proposal for wreck:date_commissioned but this wording seems ambiguous: who would commission a wreck? I guess the intention is to tag the date of the commission of the ship that later became a wreck? What about wreck:ship_commission_date? There is no definition for wreck:width. Is this the width of the former ship or the actual width of the current wreck? If it's the latter why don't we simply use the well established width=*? But then, how could we know that wreck:width actually refers to ship:width? This becomes relevant in cases where the ship "lies on the side". The same applies to "wreck:length" (why not length=*? Why not ship:length? Think about ships that break in parts during the wreckage.) -- Dieterdreist 16:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Tagging of intentionally sunk ship?
What's the conclusion of "Technically, ships that are intentionally sunk are not wrecks (e.g. Wikipedia HMS Scylla)."?
Does it mean that intentionally sunk ships should not be tagged using historic=wreck?
Is there any other tagging for such ships?
Proposed by: --TimSC 19:10, 3 June 2007 (BST)
Potential Discussion Points
Should we instead have a "nautical" top level key? We may want to include bouys, lights, etc...
Anyone with in depth knowledge might want to comment on measurement of tonnage.
Why "historical"? How old is something to be a historical wreck vs. a modern wreck, and is there any point in distinguishing? --Hawke 00:11, 12 June 2007 (BST)
- I used Historical as it was the best fit I could find and wrecks are usually "unmaintained". I briefly considered "man made" but this seemed more like maintained structures. I also considered proposing a "nautical" tag but this is beyond my area of experience. I have not heard of any distinction between modern and historic wrecks. There may be other distinctions which could be interesting (e.g. war grave). Some wrecks are totally removed by salvage and might be marked temporary(?) --TimSC 21:07, 28 June 2007 (BST)
- I sorta agree that historic seems correct, because it's the fact that it is an event in the past that draws peoples attention to it. If its a recent ship wreck and its going to be removed it wouldn't be mapped. So except for sometimes being tourism, most of them would be looked at as something that captures some event in the past. One question; should ship wrecks that are underwater be split appart from shipwrecks that are visible from the land? (some may be both of corse). Because from a mapping perspective you need to know if you know if the shipwreck is a landmark or not. Ben 05:28, 11 July 2007 (BST)
- historic seems correct to me as well. It might even be a good idea to render it differently depending wether it's visible from the surface or not. Do we need two tags historic=wreck and historic=wreck_visible? Or is it ok to simply use something like surface=yes? Ulfl 03:12, 12 July 2007 (BST)
- Maybe historic=wreck_visible,wreck_tidal,wreck_invisible
- Tidal would be if any part is covered or uncovered by the tide at any time.
- --SpeedEvil 13:48, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- I have added keys for if the wreck is visible at high and low tides. --TimSC 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a nautical key IMHO, the waterway should do just fine, at least for your examples: bouys and lights will usually be near a waterway, even on the ocean - or am I wrong with this assumption (yes, I'm not a nautical guy)? Ulfl 03:12, 12 July 2007 (BST)
- As a (semi-)nautical guy, i can see a strong case for a nautical= tag. this could move openstreetmap a little offshore, providing the ability to create charts (for sea navigation). i can envisage, for example nautical=buoy (with buoy, light, flash, and sound tags), nautical=beacon (with height, light, flash, sound), nautical=rock or nautical=wreck (with depth from LAT (chart datum)), nautical=mole, nautical=bottom (for mud, sand, shingle, etc), nautical=depth (for individual surveyed depths), nautical=pipeline,cable, and so on.
- Sciuro 11:42, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- I think this is a very good idea but I think progress will be slow in the short term due to lack of data. On land, it is relatively easy to move around and stop to collect data. Perhaps not at sea. Also, sea navigation is pretty safety critical so you don't want a mistake on the chart. Would you put your boat or your life in the hands of OSM? --TimSC 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wreck may suit for other things. In some countries, abandoned tanks, for example.
Car wrecks should probably be a seperate tag. --SpeedEvil 13:48, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- Interesting idea. Perhaps we need a war debris feature? --TimSC 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering HMS Scylla is technically an artificial reef, not a wreck, I guess we need another tag for that? :) --TimSC 19:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that the historic tag can be used much more widely for formal and informal values so will vote yes for this one. I don't think it precludes further discussion on more rigorous offshore tagging with a nautical= tag. MikeCollinson 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Voting opened on 2008-03-04, originally due to finish 2008-03-18, voting extended to 2008-04-01.
Please record your votes here.
- Abstain, but please also take a look at Proposed features/ship which is semi-relevant. 80n 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve the proposal for historic=wreck. MikeCollinson 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve the proposal for historic=wreck. SlowRider 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve the proposal for historic=wreck. --EdoM (lets talk about it) 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve the proposal for historic=wreck. --Gregoryw 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve the proposal for historic=wreck. I prefer the simple black icon on the left Richard B 13:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Walley 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--TimSC 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--pray4mojo 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Colin Marquardt 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Hawke 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I would prefer it to be possible to make clear when they are a landmark or not (visible)...--Ben 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve the proposal for historic=wreck. - Ulfl 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal for historic=wreck --Eimai 12:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal for historic=wreck but I also see the need for a nautical key --Dieterdreist 24:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal for historic=wreck but I also see the need for a nautical key --SpeedEvil 25:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal for historic=wreck --Netman55 09:53 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal for historic=weeck --Geoff 10:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --Gunnar 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrecks are not only ships!
i have several plane wrecks to add. Maybe we should change the historic=wreck definition in the wiki. Wrecks are not only ships, but the wiki sayed "A wreck is a nautical craft"
wreck:type (plane,ship,tank,submarine,car ...)
wreck:date (instead of wreck:date_sunk, because the plane wrecks can be on the land too)
- The most numerous tags related to aircraft wreckage, best I can see as of September 2014, is historic=aircraft_wreck . Also appearing is wreck:type=* , wreck=plane , and other similar constructs. It would be useful to have some standard agreed upon sooner than later; clearly there is an organic want for this sort of tag. Skybunny (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)