Discuss Tag:waterway=rapids here:
- Yeah is this is a proposal? Has it been discussed at all anywhere? Because it seems to be on the Map Features page. I think I'll remove it. The tag is not well documented, and to my mind it is a bad idea for a tag anyway. -- Harry Wood 09:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Rapid is part of a river
A rapid is fundamentally part of a river, so (clearly!) a better idea would be to tag the whole river as waterway=river and then add some secondary descriptive tag e.g. rapid=yes to the section of river which is a fast flowing rapid.
-- Harry Wood 10:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Distinction between rapid and not rapid
What is the distinction between a bit a river which is a rapid and bit of river which is just a bit of river? How fast "flowing and turbulent" does it need to be before it counts as a rapid? This is another problem with this tag idea. Not an easy one to solve (if you're only looking at lower sections of a river, it may seem clear, but really it isn't) The page would need to tackle that somehow for this tag to be usable. -- Harry Wood 10:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
So, what to do?
In spite of the failure of this tag, it has been used more than 30.000 times. (See: Tag-Info. The much better alternative, the whitewater tagging scheme, much less, about 300 times. Both tagging values figures as "abondoned". --Federico Explorador (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest a mass edit (bot or script anyone?) to reallocate all waterway=rapids to a combination of waterway=river and whitewater:rapid_grade=unknown thereby encouraging people to use this more explicit taggin standard, whilst not misleading map users to what grades these tags are representing. Martin Renvoize 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)