Proposal talk:Pedestrian river crossing

Water Speed

When working out if you can cross any waterway, as well as depth, you'd also need to consider the likely water speed, as while you can easily walk across shallow, still, water, trying to cross deep, rapidly flowing water could easily be life-threatening :-(

Possible ranges could be:
still: water is hardly moving
gentle: water movement is discernable but can easily & safely be walked through
brisk: may be difficult for young / old to cross
rapid: requires ropes etc for safety
raging: should not be attempted as life-threatening

--Fizzie41 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

While important, I think this could be a different tag. --Aharvey (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the general idea a lot. Maybe the wording and descriptions can be tweaked a bit. For example, I never heard the word "brisk" before. But we probably need a separate proposal with its own discussion for this anyway.--Hauke-stieler (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Water Temperature

Similarly, the likely water temperature would also need to be considered, to show whether the waterway could be easily & comfortably waded through, or if it would be unpleasant / dangerous.

Possible ranges:
comfortable (25°C <) - feels reasonably warm, able to be experienced for extended periods (hours)
cool (20-25°C) - "takes your breath away" when entering, unpleasant after ~15 minutes
cold (10-20°C) - numbing, only able to be stood for a few minutes
frigid (<10°C) - potentially life threatening

Of course, these are very subjective descriptions - somebody from Northern Australia may regard 25°C water as cold, while a Scandinavian may happily swim in 5°C water! --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

While important, I think this could be a different tag. --Aharvey (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea but I don't know if tagging a temperature a good idea, as the temperature can significantly change between seasons. For example: I live in Germany and it's common that ponds, streams and sometimes large rivers freeze during winter or at least have near 0°C temperatures. But during summer it's very common that there are water temperatures above 20°C. However if you have a ford through a glacier stream/river, the temperature will always be freezing cold. Maybe some categories in the waterway and/or ford node are better? Something like water_source=glacier or water_temperature=seasonal? But that of course would be a whole new and probably quite complicated and subjective tagging scheme.--Hauke-stieler (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Reuse key

It will be more organized to use eg ford:water_level:foot=*, like bridge:*=* and tunnel:*=*. As a side note, *:water_level=* is already used in monitoring:water_level=*. --- Kovposch (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

+1 love it. This was also my first impression: Using "ford" as a namespace makes it more structured like the other namespace tags you mentioned.--Hauke-stieler (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)