From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Note that it conflicts with other landuse values (for example railway, industrial...). It probably should be in a different namespace Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


The Harbour page suggest tagging the harbour area as landuse=harbour. The landuse=*-page suggests landuse=port, which in turn suggests landuse=industrial + industrial=port. I guess it would be a good idea to clean up these definitions. --Skippern (talk)

I'm mainly interested to tag terminals, the industrial variation was done by me following discussion on osm-carto, and I'm using it. Harbour tags I've never used them, and they aren't really either clear or supported. --Sarchittuorg (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to see the documentation agree on a single scheme that data consumers will adopt. Currently there are 3 different schemes documented, with no one taking priority over other. There are several objects mapped on each of the schemes, and because all 3 uses the landuse=*-tag, they cannot be combined. Besides, we need to think about how the scheme can accommodate intermodal ports and dry ports. Current situation is not helpful to mappers and data consumers. --Skippern (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

bad deprecation suggestion

The suggestion to replace landuse=port/harbour by landuse=industrial+industrial=port is bad in my opinion: not all ports/harbours are industrial (not even if we include fishery), and in fact now most of them are marinas for leisure, where ports/harbours provide only anchorage and living services (water, energy, waste collection and recyling) and collect residence taxes.

Only in the largest harbours there's both activities (but leisure marinas tend to be using wider surfaces, and industry is now limited to basic services, with fishery activities being centralized only in a few harbours (within a limited area, with the rest transformed into marinas, and a small part which may be used for both, except if this is a military harbour, which will have another landuse=military along with access restrictions).

Harbours are a complex case where you include basins, protection dikes, and surrounding activities of various types, not all of them industrial but including services and commerces, and frequently other leisures such as museums, aquariums, service highways for maritime/fluvial transportation by ferries/barges (not really industrial), and areas for larger ships or cargos (frequently mixing industrial and leisure) in only very few harbours; maritime construction is becoming even more rare (and not necessarily located within harbours themselves: for most leisure ships, they are frequently located kilometers aways from harbours as this requires lot of space and space in harbours is now expensive, and boats are then delivered to customers by road on trucks...).

Most fishery transformation industries are also now far away from harbours, products being moved immediately by trucks to the gross sell place and then transformed elsewhere ! — Verdy_p (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that the different tags (be it landuse=port, landuse=industrial + industrial=port, or landuse=harbour) need to be consolidated, and clear instructions in what tag to use. Currently these 3 tags, and a few pages pointing to them, are giving different and contradicting recommendations. We should be able to stand behind one main tag covering all ports, and have the different tags point to the main one. The tag we agree on should also have the flexibility to tag different types of ports, but this specialised tagging should not interfere with a generic use of the tag. --Skippern (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
But there's a collision anyway notably between landuse=port/harbour and landuse=military/leisure/industrial/commercial/residential; landuse is then not suitable for ports/harbours which are in fact more like boundaries (and frequently administrative ones with a dedicated local authority (for development, planning, regulation, taxes). In many places these boundaries are quarters of a city, but sometimes harbour authorities are covering parts of several neighbouring cities. (Exactly the same remarks also apply for airports). Harbours are always a collection of related equipements, and services in a well defined area and a specific local regulation. — Verdy_p (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The move of public transportation related tags from amenity=* to its own public_transport=* namespace opens a door in this case. Ports, Harbours, Dryports, Goods storage areas, etc can include goods handling areas of airports, railway cargo handling yards, port waterfront moorings, etc. Intermodal handling of cargo is not uncommon, so in my opinion, a more mature tagging scheme that can identify the usage and different nature of several features within a cargo handling area is welcome. As a maritime professional, it is of interest to me to know what part of a seaport have ISPS restrictions, and which have not, where to access ISPS restricted area, safe walking routes inside the restricted areas, safe waiting areas inside the restricted areas, custom clearance storages, tax free storages, and duty paid storages. If we are able to move ports and cargo handling into a dedicated namespace, and a mature tagging scheme, than all of the items I have mentioned will be possible to tag, and maps indicating such can be rendered, etc. --Skippern (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Globally I agree, however ports/harbours are not just centered on transportation and many activities are in fact side services not about transportation (and not even public transport: there's almost never any public transportation line in military harbours, or marinas, or fishery ports, except a few harbours for ferries. Public transport is centered on the transportation of people, possibly with their vehicle and are open to transport anyone (not the case of marinas where there's no dedicated services even if there are some irregular private trips proposed).
So I would prefer having a "boundary=port" relation to delimit these ports/harbours/airports and enclose all activities (buildings, landuse=*, shops, services, natural=* including beach, service highways, restricted military/industrial areas, parking areas, marinas, bassins, and accesses to the public and terminals for real transportation lines or ferries...). These boundaries almost always have a local port authority, independant of the municipal authorities on their territories: tax and duty collection is possible in that delimited area managed by this port authority. In France, they are managed by "syndicats mixtes", where local administrative collectivities are members, or regional councils, a chamber of commerce, professional syndicates and major companies operating there, plus possibly other public or private environmental organizations (including natural parks when they border the port/airport and are crossed by navigation reaching the [air]port, or water bassin agencies when along a river or its estuary). the public_transport tags will only be a small part of these ports, only for regular lines open to the public (and generally not directly managed by the port but by operators of these lines or local collectivities organizing and regulating the service). — Verdy_p (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, all seaports and harbours have legally defined limites seaward, so a boundary=port or boundary=harbour relation would make sense. Also, most ports have a land area covering commercial, retail, industry, storage, government services, there might be military=* areas within the bounds of a port, parts of it might be used for public_transport=* or leisure=*. A landuse=* tag is currently very complicated and collide with several uses within the bounds of the port. In addition, not all ports have a maritime use, there are several intermodal dry ports, handling goods between road, rail, and/or air transport. Some dry ports even might be part of a road distribution network without having intermodal services. The entire port/harbour infrastructure need to be possible to tag in a sensible way. The different wiki pages are currently not help much as they point in different directions on how to solve some of the issues, while not attending other issues, this on top of possible tagging conflicts with multiple tags sharing the same namespaces. --Skippern (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)