From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Way as a node?

The slipWAY is by definition a way not a node. Besides to make the Osmarender icon happy, why just tag the end node? --Hamish 10:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I changed the page to way. --Markus 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of a "discussion page" is that the matter is disccussed and a consensus is reached. This needs to happen before changing a long-standing convention (>4 years). Please revert your change to the main wiki page until such time, thanks. (if you don't, I will). If you want to do something about changing it, the first thing that has to happen is that the change be put up as a proposal. --Hamish 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The "be bold" principle of wiki editing also applies. It's good to discuss stuff first if it's a major change. It may be even be *so* major that we'd want to go through a tedious voting process (unlikely!) How major a wiki page change is, can be debated of course. But I think this change is quite minor, and discussed it. -- Harry Wood 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
JOSM presets only allow slipway to be applied to a node. Seems a consensus is needed so that the element page and JOSM agree. Dahc 19:45, 30 June 2011 (BST)

The current insistence of this wiki page that thus must be a node seems illogical to me (and therefore not how I am mapping things in OSM). I propose that we change leisure=slipway to be normally mapped as a way. However other taggings may be appropriate in some circumstances: area (e.g. on particularly wide slipways) or node (e.g. where the details are not known/mappable). --Fluteflute 09:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So the page now says node/way.
I noticed recently that JOSM validator complained about my slipway way, which seemed odd. It needs syncing with this change I guess.
node/way/area labels on the wiki have become something of an irrelevance over the years as people have stepped forward to argue that any tag could be mapped as a node way or area. Does nobody want to argue that a slipway could also be an area? only a matter of time.
-- Harry Wood 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Osmose ( still thinks that leisure=slipway should be a node rather than a way (or at the very least that it shouldn't be combined with highway=service and service=slipway). Would be good to provide more clarity about how to map such instances...
Some examples:
--Dónal (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Osmose is just a validator. Is this bug in validator reported to the authors on their issue tracker? Is JOSM validator complaining about this? (in general JOSM validator is strictly superior to any other existing general-purpose validator)Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh I get that. But I'm not even sure that highway=service and service=slipway is the appropriate way to map these. JOSM complains that I have a way touching an area. :/ --Dónal (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The osmose issue is Osmose code that is 100% based on JOSM code, in this case combinations.mapcss. Have the problem fixed in JOSM (make a ticket) and Osmose will follow automatically. -- Emvee (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Why leisure?

Many slipways, especially the vehicle=no track + winch and Travel-lift kind are at commercial shipyards and not recreational. So is leisure=* really appropriate for all of them? --Hamish 10:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"leisure" is old stuff from old OSM history.
I prefer this:
+ harbour:slipway:type=*         ( manually | by car | cable winch | crane )
+ harbour:slipway:maxload=##,#   (tons)
--Markus 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely oblivious but isn't width important? I mean a kayak have a bit different needs than an ocean liner. --grin 06:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is... Would be good to capture that. --Dónal (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
harbour=splipway is barely used and not better. Some slipways are not in harbours. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


Some slipways have restrictions on the type of boats that can be launched, for example, the Six Mile Landing Boat Ramp ( has a sign limiting the motors to 10 horsepower or less.

canoe launching facility

How about a smaller ramp designed for launching canoes rather than motor boats? leisure=slipway + canoe=designated? Aharvey (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That's why I got on here. There are dozens of canoe launches in my area. I've been mapping them as slipways and naming them "canoe launch".

Also, I need to know how to map a canoe path. We have a few of those around here. No, it's not something made up; there are official signs designating a canoe trail. Kirbert 13 May 2020

How about highway=path and canoe=designated? See OSM tags for routing/Access restrictions for the default access for path in your country and add some specific tags to prevent for instance bicyclists from using it. --- Emvee (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I also have a number of "boat launches" like this that the state parks department calls "primitive" launches, "hand" launches, or "canoe" launches. Some of these you can use a 4x4 and light trailer to launch a drift boat, some are just dirt where you can portage a canoe. I don't think "vehicle=no" is clear enough.

This tag is also used on ways and as areas

The Overpass query way["leisure"="slipway"](if: is_closed()); out count; reveals that currently, the tag is used on 1178 closed ways (= areas) and 6701 ways.

I'd say it also makes sense: Some may want to map it like a short service road because it appears like that. Some may want to map it as an area to record the true dimensions of it, f.e. for a very detailed map.

I corrected it in the card on the right. --Westnordost (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --Aharvey (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It is poor practice to use the same tag for areas and lines. A closed way then becomes ambiguous: is it an area or a line? In this case, it's reasonable to map a slipway as a line (though a node is often good enough), but mapping a closed way for an area is a mistake. If mappers wish to show the area of a slipway, I would recommend a tag like area:leisure=slipway, in the same format as area:highway=* --Jeisenbe (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I concur. Using area:leisure=slipway is the most logical if it isn't routable (though to be honest slipways do allow for routing anywhere in the area / across the area in most cases). --Dónal (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Is highway=service and service=slipway valid ?

While the service slipway tag is not in this documentation it can be found on the German how to map page. > Der Weg wird als highway=service + service=slipway und der Endpunkt als leisure=slipway erfasst. Since a lot of QA tools flag this I wanted to hear some opinions --Ferdinand0101 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

How it is used? In general QA tools complaining about something does not mean that tagging is certainly invalid, false positives may always happen Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Two examples... and --Dónal (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Probably good to document its use here as well with over 4.000 uses. It is already mentioned on service=*. service=slipway should be used as a refinement of the highway=service that leads to the water. We should warn mappers that it does not replace leisure=slipway, which must still be tagged on the last node of the way, or on the way itself (the former method seems preferred). --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)