Talk:Waterways

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purpose

The talk page is for discussing how to improve this article. It can also be used to discuss new tagging suggestions. PeterIto 11:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

natural=lake?

I am not clear where the natural=lake tag came from that Harry mentions today. It might have come from one of the other merged articles or be a figment of my imagination which I introduced when I did the recent work on the article! Does it even render? On reflection we could use it for a natural area of water, and retain natural=water as the more generic tagging for a unspecified area of water which might be a reservoir or a lake or a dock. It is however possibly too late to make a change like this. PeterIto 21:45, 25 March 2012 (BST)

OneWay key

I suggest to add the key oneway=* (Yes/No/-1) as for Highways. Example: in Chalon-sur-Saone, there is a oneway direction to enter the marina. --Cordialement, gerdami 16:01, 29 July 2012 (BST)

My mistake: I made a confusion between flow of river and direction of navigation.--Cordialement, gerdami 21:12, 30 July 2012 (BST)

Dry lakebeds?

How to tag dry or seasonally dry lake(bed)s? Thanks

-- Hamish (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Trees and Bushes Along a waterway

It often occurs that a stream is accompanied by trees and bushes that only grow close to the water. There is currently no sensible way to tag this. I suggest to have an additional tag that can be added to any waterway, maybe call it green_banks=*. Values could be "left", "right", or "both", same as "yes". Sub-tags could be green_banks:width=* and green_banks:height=*, in order to provide the average amount of vegetation. Of course, a waterway would have to be split at the start and end of such a vegetation segment. And of course, this would not be applicable while the waterway crosses a forest. --Mink (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

natural=tree_row would be adequate for trees? There is also Proposed features/Hedgerow which I haven´t looked at yet. RicoZ (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems some kind of natural=scrub would be a better description than hedge in most cases. The scrub tag isn´t defined for linear ways as far as I can see, so either it should be extended to cover linear ways or a scrub_row analog to tree_row should get created. Mapping it as scrub area would be more correct but sometimes perhaps an overkill and I can see many other uses for strips of scrub. RicoZ (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

landuse=reservoir

I'm not sure if this even renders in the map. Wouldn't it be better to suggest tagging a reservoir with natural=water & water=reservoir? This is how I have mapped them. --ItalianMustache (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, natural=water+water=reservoir is better. Landuse works as well.RicoZ (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Streams and rivers crossing forests, grasslands and bare_rock areas

There is some discussion what to do if a waterway crosses a bare_rock or other natural areas here: Talk:Tag:natural=bare rock . RicoZ (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Riverbanks

On this page, it is recommended to tag banks as follow:

Why can't we agree on one of them (or a third possibility) to have banks in common for all waterways? I see no point to distinguish rivers, streams, canals as currently described Fanfouer (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

natural=water + water=river is sometimes used instead waterway=riverbank Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Changeable flow direction

There are some waterways where due to natural or technical reasons the flow direction changes from time to time. One example might be waterway=tidal_channel. The other example are sluiced canals connecting lakes and rivers. During freshets sluices are opened for the water to fill the lakes and thus water flows towards a lake. Then the sluices are closed and there is no flow. Sometimes to avoid overflow and flooding the sluices are opened to reduce water level inside a lake and this way water flows towards a river.

I believe there should be a way to omit the flow direction or make it bidirectional. -- VileGecko (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! That's a good point and it makes me discover there are two solutions to do so currently reviewed:
Back in 2017, flow_direction=both was reviewed with the sinkholes proposal by @Penegal:
Then in 2018, hydropower water supplies proposal used the more established direction=both
What do you think about these? Fanfouer (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply! I'd be happy with flow_direction=both if only it was well-established and I do like the key and tag combination. I'll probably use this one here despite of scarcity in its usage. The other variant direction=both seems a bit ambiguous to me and there might arise some conflicts if there is some feature similar to roadsigns or calming measures (I know of the seamark=* scheme and its detachedness from the overall tagging) placed on a waterway. -- VileGecko (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Re: tidal channels: the feature waterway=tidal_channel usually has reversible water flow by definition. This was mentioned in the proposal. The way direction is supposed to be drawn towards the sea. But I agree that it would be useful to have a tag for this situation in the case of artificial canals and ditches. I suppose flow_direction=both is less ambiguous, compared to direction=both which might be considered to mean that two-way travel by boat is allowed, in the case of navigable canals. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Streams passing through lakes

Mention how to map a stream that enters one end of a lake and leaves via the other end. Jidanni (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a good practice would be not to include any name tags to a waterway segment running through a named lake or reservoir (name of the lake/reservoir supercedes name of the stream or river) but keep any wikidata or wikipedia tags in place and still include this segment to the waterway relation. --VileGecko (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
+1 Fanfouer (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Line vs. polygon

I've added a clarification; could someone review it, please? Thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)