From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This is very good idea! Where can I give my YES-vote for this proposal? :) Joosep-Georg 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a clean approach and will give good results even in more complicated situations. As an example a road crossing a Riverbank can be tagged in a consistent way. Setting highway=ford to deprecated in particular for ways will be the bottom line and could also solve some problems currently discussed at the Talk-ht mailings. Hasemann 12:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that there should be a layer tag present for the road way, while it might be at the bottom of the body of water, it isn't under it in the same way a tunnel would be -- Delta foxtrot2 03:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Gorm 18:48, 24 October 2010 (BST)
Why is length needed when you can simply mark the start and finish with nodes? -- Delta foxtrot2 03:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree --Gorm 18:48, 24 October 2010 (BST)
I think it's better to use water=yes (or water=tidal or water=intermittent) to convey more about the nature of the water-cover, as with the surrounding land. ford=stepping_stones is unnecessary, as we can continue to combine highway=steps with water=* (or with ford=* if you must) - this has all the required semantics (e.g. inaccessible to wheeled vehicles, etc.) The proposal is definitely an improvement on highway=ford, which is an abomination as it obliterates the road class and is little use for routing. I also agree with Delta_foxtrot2 above that a layer different from the water is wrong - particularly as there should be a junction node with the watercourse centreline. And I think that node should still be tagged with highway=ford, for uses that can use just the node. --tms13 08:42, 19 October 2010 (BST)
  1. re: Water. Didn't know about that tag. I encourage you to write something about it in the wiki. There are about 28k water=intermittent ways and 10k water=*.
  2. re: stepping stones. Don't agree with using highway=steps. Semantics is just the reason not to. steps!=stepping_stones and hardly steps!=ford (unless there is a stream that flows over the steps.
  3. re: junction node on highway x waterway. Agree on that one.
  4. re: highway=ford on nodes. Disagree. Not good to leave "two versions" of fords. We also generally need to cleanup the highway tag.
-- Gorm 18:48, 24 October 2010 (BST)

I would suggest expanding possible values for ford tag.

ford=wet - it is not stream over the road, but just enough to make it wet. This explains that road may be wet or slippery on asphalt roads. For roads with soft surfaces it explains that surface may be wet but not enough to form deep myd

ford=mud - for soft surfaces this explains that crossing water creates deep mud that may be problem for pedestrians, cyclists and even cars. This information is very needed for field and forest tracks. It may be good to have option to describe level of mud from passable by pedestrians up to passable only by special off road vehicles.

What is the status of this tag anyways? It's been proposed long time ago.

-- Pedja 12:29, 20 April 2012 (CET)

I think access-tags would be helpful: [vehicle]=yes/no/... -- MasiMaster 13:49, 20 April 2012 (BST)

Opinion Poll

using by {{poll|yes}} or {{poll|no}} and --~~~~

  • I like this proposal. Because highway=ford dropped the highway-information, if it is used as a way. --MasiMaster 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I like this proposal. Fits well for planned purpose. I need this for detailed topographic mapping. --Pedja 12:29, 20 April 2012 (CET)
  • I like this proposal. Mapnik should add an icon for fords only usable by foot or horse, often the case in mountain areas. --Federico Explorador 22:26, 29 June 2012 (BST)
  • I like this proposal. Great idea. This key is a necessity. You have my vote. --Dommel 10:41, 16 July 2012 (KRAT)
  • I like this proposal. Better than no highway at all. That would make routing easier. --Mancho 04:32, 17 July 2012 (BST)

ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

It would be nice to mark whole highways or some segments like this. Sometimes we know that a particular highway has no fords but do not have enough details to map every single bridge or culvert properly - ford=no could improve that situation so people could be sure not to get wet feet. RicoZ (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There will still be no guarantee that your feet won't be wet. So the definition of ford=no would be very unclear. If there is no ford at a river crossing (no matter if it is a single node or a several along a way) just let the two ways cross and don't connect the highway and waterway with a shared node. I bet there are thousands of these in the data today without any problems. Some quality checkers will complain about it; ignore them or add the brige/culvert. --Gorm (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The definition is quite clear - ford=no means there is no ford. Just letting the ways cross without either a ford or bridge/culvert is not quite the same, it could mean missing data - there can still be a ford but nobody mapped it yet. RicoZ (talk)