From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What are the tags for size of the lock ?

We could use width, length or maxwidth, maxlength. Usage show that maxwidth and maxlength are more used (see tag info). Moreover, theses tags are used by OpenSeaMap on harbors

For the height (the difference of water level from the top and the bottom basins), height, lock:height, lock_height and maxheight are used. height is more often used and simple :-)

See also

What tags to use for contact information ?

  • phone, contact:phone, lock:phone, waterway:lock:phone ?
  • vhf, VHF, lock:VHF_channel, waterway:vhf_channel, vhf_channel, VHF_channel, VHF-channel, lock:channel, contact:vhf ?
  • website, url ?

I suggest :

I reply to myself 6 years after ;D
vhf is more used than other tags
Count tag
996 vhf
244 vhf_channel
72 contact:vhf
63 waterway:vhf_channel
44 lock:VHF_channel
28 VHF
3 maritime_vhf_ch
2 tunnel:VHF_channel
1 communication:VHF
1 contact:vhf:tower
1 contact:vhf:approach
1 waterway:lock:vhf

--Pyrog (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Derelict locks

And suggestions about how to tag derelict locks? PeterIto (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the condition of the lock. If the lock is disused but still in good condition, just add the tag disused=yes to the the waterway that are tagged wtih lock=yes and to the two waterway=lock_gate features. But probably you meant a lock that has been abandoned and cannot be returned to service without extensive repairs or complete rebuilding. In that case, if the lock is still mostly intact and still looks like a lock, I would still use lock=yes + abandoned=yes for the waterway or water area, but use abandoned:waterway=lock_gate for the gates, since they are no longer functional - this makes it clear to database users that there are not gates that will open or close (I assume they are stuck in the open position). If the lock is in ruins and the gates are no longer in place, but there are still clear signs that this used to be a lock, then I would use abandoned:lock=* and abandoned:waterway=* since the original features are no longer existing, but the ruins are still evident. If the lock is completely gone and there are no obvious remnants, then don't tag it at all. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Boat rollers?

Boat slide at Boveney Lock, River Thames

These are where there is a dry slope, usually with rollers (hence the name) which can be used by small boats and canoes to bypass the lock. Sometimes a small part of the river stream flows through them, as at Sunbury Lock.

There doesn't currently seem to be a convention for mapping these - they can be part of a through route which could be useful for navigation in appropriate craft. For the moment I've started to tag the river route with lock=* and the actual slope with leisure=slipway, as described on User:Threefoursixninefour#Waterway_locks. Are there any suggestions for a better system? Threefoursixninefour (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Tagging convention for names

Locks tend to be part of a larger waterway system such as a canal and canals can be relations of a series of segments. Should the name=* be used strickly for the name of the waterway while lock_name=* be used for the name of the lock? Then when relations are used, do segments of the waterway even need to be named? Or is the name inherited from the relation? DFyson (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, lock_name=* is better for the name of the lock, especially when you are tagging the waterway=*. When using a type=waterway relation it's still a good idea to tag the individual ways that make up the river or canal with name=*, since these relations are not handled by all database users, and when editing them it can be confusing if the way does not have a name. Also, the names of long rivers and canals often change over their course, especially when they cross into different linguistic regions, so it's good to put the locally used common name=* for each waterway segment. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
There is some big issues:
  • Neither Nominatim or OsmAnd... find the lock by it's name (these tools don't index lock_name=*)
  • Some users add the name of the lock to it's chamber: this usage "break" the How to map scheme. (i.e. name=Potters Lock).
    Nominatim find the lock :-), but unfortunately describe it as "water" :-(.
  • Other users use the name of the lock for the waterway: this usage "break" the scheme described above. (i.e. name=Northmoor Lock)
What should we do?
  • update all tools to index lock_name=* and lock_ref=*?
  • update old tools that doesn't support relations?
  • propose lock:name=* to be consistent with bridge:name=* that is indexed by nominatim. And update all tools?
--Pyrog (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
> Also, the names of long rivers and canals often change over their course [..] so it's good to put the locally used common name=* for each waterway segment.
We could use a relation for this part of the river, that could be included in the "main".
--Pyrog (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple lock basins

How should multiple locks in a row be mapped? Single way spanning the set of locks (with nodes for gates) or split into individual ways per lock basin? A set of locks will typically grouped together under one name but each individual lock might have it's own name or number. DFyson (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)