Talk:Proposed features/Seaway

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attempt inspired by wikipedia page on port

After reading from wikipedia:Port#Types, just food for thought:

Main key:

some subkeys:

-- Althio (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable contribution, I have taken some ideas and concepts and have not used some others. Here is part of my reasoning (see also updated proposal): I think if we introduce a new key we can use several values for something as different as different kind of ports (rather than shifting everything by one level and use a generic "seaport" in the first order). We haven't done this with railway (AFAIK, cargo and other stations are not distinguished on the first level?), neither with aeroways (aerodrome is the only category) but that caused a lot of trouble, especially with airports.
The passenger=cruise/ferry tag suffers from the same problem than my approach (have to decide for one), but I took the idea of setting the details as property (in a way that both can be applied at the same time). I have also simplified the cargo-property denominators and they could be applied as property to passenger ports if needed. The English WP article is a start, but it is not complete, I have also looked at it. I decided not to put fishing for leisure into this category, because it really belongs to leisure=marine rather than a port (or if you leave from a real port, that's a side-business anyway and not the principal purpose of the port). I like the idea of having a tag "ice free" or similar like your warm-water suggestion, but I haven't found a good wording so far, and likely I would want to integrate areas with not so warm water as well, where the ice is removed to ensure navigatability. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Terminology

  1. Fundamentally, I'm still unsure how to handle port-harbour-terminal from here (say how to include/separate the entirely water-land jurisdiction, water area, or land-side facilities), as described in Harbour#Terminology. It's something more obvious in seamark:type=*, despite its shortcomings. Mixing in "terminal" from "ferry terminals" at Proposed_features/Seaway#Passenger_ports and ferry_port=terminal at Proposed_features/Seaway#Useful_subkeys seems unclear. For the latter, you could use "terminus"?
  2. In general, why seaway=* instead of waterway=*? Does this concept not apply to river and lake transport? The Proposed_features/Seaway#Inland_ports treatment looks redundant and overcomplicated.
  3. Won't *way=port + port=* be better than *way=*_port, since you have already raised the possibility of seaway=port in Proposed_features/Seaway#Tagging.

-- Kovposch (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. The port would include all related facilities (those belonging to the port), on land and in the water, as it is described in Harbour#Terminology, while the harbour is probably only the part in the water, completely agree with these 2 definitions. I am not sure whether "terminus" is more suitable than "terminal", let's see what the discussion shows.
  2. currently I believe that river and lake transport is indeed quite distinguishable and different from ocean transport, both, the vessels and the facilities, but I might be misguided here
  3. Can you explain why it would be better to have 2 tags rather than one, if the information stays the same? The 2 tag approach would only work if there might be many people that are interested in any kind of port, for ferries, container cargo, bulk cargo, cruise ships etc., without wanting to know which kind it is, not?

--Dieterdreist (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)