Talk:Tag:waterway=rapids

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discuss Tag:waterway=rapids here:


Inactive proposal

Proposal appears inactive and roughly duplicates tagging already in use at WikiProject Whitewater Maps Martin Renvoize 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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 This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea as the whitewater sports project looks much more active. Time to bring it up in the mailing list. RicoZ (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)