Proposal:Waterway (relation)
| waterway | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | werner2101 |
| Tagging: | type=waterway |
| Applies to: | relation |
| Definition: | relation for waterways and rivers |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | not rendered |
| Draft started: | 2010-03-19 |
| RFC start: | 2010-04-01 |
| Vote start: | 2012-02-19 |
| Vote end: | 2012-04-30 |
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal waterway is located at Relation:waterway |
Preface
There are currently several different tagging schemas out there for waterway relations. This draft will show the differences of the existing schemas and propose the usage of type=waterway for future mapping.
The purpose of waterway relations is to have an object for each river. Common tags like references, wikipedia pages, international names only need to be added once.
Later the waterway relations can be used to form watersheds.
Tagging
| Key | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|
| type | waterway | |
| waterway | [river, stream, canal, drain, ditch] | subtype of the waterway relation similar to key:waterway Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g. river). |
| name | * | name of the river the international name tags name:en=, name:de, ... are recommend for large waterways |
| destination | * (optional) | name of the river, sea or ocean in which this waterway flows into. (see discussion) |
| ref | * (optional) | any kind of reference or use the specialized tags below. (See discussion for more alternatives) |
| ref:sandre | * (optional) | in France you can add the sandre reference: see French waterways wikiprojet for explanations. Sandre official Website or fr.wikipedia |
| ref:fgkz | * (optional) | in Germany you can add the FGKZ reference: de.wikipedia |
| ref:regine | * (optional) | in Norway you can add the regine reference: de.wikipedia |
| ref:gnis | * (optional) | in USA you can add the gnis reference: en.wikipedia |
| ref:gnbc | * (optional) | in Canada you can add the gnbc reference: en.wikipedia |
| wikipedia | * (optional) | Links to wikipedia pages |
Members
| Object type | Role | Recurrence | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
|
None or main_stream | one or more | any kind of waterway ways. They usually have a waterway=[river, canal, stream, drain, ditch] tag no riverbank areas |
|
|
side_stream | optional | waterway=river, waterway=canal, waterway=stream... a branch of main stream than return to it. |
|
spring | optional | natural=spring The spring of the river |
History of waterway relations
- In 2008 user beldin started to created relations in Australia. He introduced the tag combination type=collection and collection=waterway. This tag combination is only used in Australia.
- In 2009 (March) user City-busz started to create relations in Hungary. He introduced the tag combination type=route and route=waterway.
- In 2009 (Juli) user katpatuka started to create relations to make it easier to download whole waterways. He used the tag type=river
- In 2009 (Juli) user wessexmario started to create relations in UK with the tags type=route and route=canal. This tag combination is only used in UK
- In 2009 (September) user smarties started using type=waterway and waterway=[river,canal, ...] in Germany. He started adding referenz tags and destinations. Many mappers have adopted this scheme and it's the most widely used.
- In 2010 some relations have been added in South America with the tag combinations type=route and route=river.
Existing waterway relations
Statistics
The following page shows the currently used relation tags of the latest planet file: [1]
The taggings can be summarized into:
- type=[river, canal, ...], (439 times)
- type=collection with collection=[river, canal, ...], (60 times)
- type=route with route=[river, canal, ...], (14 times)
- and the proposed type=waterway with waterway=[river, canal, ...], (3075 times)
The multipolygons are mostly waterway=riverbank areas and are not part of this proposal.
type=river schema
The proposal of the type=river (Relations/Proposed/Rivers) describes the creation of riverbank multipolygons. The riverbanks are already well defined in Tag:waterway=riverbank.
Most of the existing river relations have the sames structure as this proposal.
The discussion page of river (Talk:Relations/Proposed/Rivers) mentions relations with the type route=river.
type=collection schema
The proposal of type=collection (Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways) mentions the usage of type=collection for all kind of ways, including river, stream, ..
type=route schema
The relation type=route (Relation:route) mentions the route type canal. There are not many usages of the route relation type for waterways.
Related pages
- waterways in Germany: WikiProject_Germany/Gewässer (this proposal is mostly based on that site created by user:smarties)
- diskussion page for rivers: WikiProject_Rivers
- An extended version of this proposal with tributaries (see discussion page): User:Frodrigo/Relation:Waterway
- French waterways wikiprojet to help gather information about mapping them
- ....
Tools
- Scanner for waterway relations: waterway hierarchy analyses
- Statistic for waterway related relations: statistics
- taginfo: key=waterway
Voting
I approve this proposal. --Werner2101 09:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC) as the creator of the proposal- I approve this proposal. --Xificurk 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Gall 10:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Stéphane 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC) to specific relation type- I approve this proposal. --Fabi2 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think we need more discussion before voting, but casting a vote is good in order to say : "hey, we are going to freeze this proposal, do you want to talk about it ?" Meet you on the talk page. By the way, I like this proposal, but I would prefere it to be even more simple sletuffe 16:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It says that other parts of river than the centreline/main flow (most importantly riverbanks) are not part of the relation. Furthermore encourages double tagging of waterways on relation and on the way itself. --LM 1 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. As someone wo does not only map but also wants to use the data, and is glad to have a standard way to find a river (even if the river can have many other tags, too) --Michael Z. 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Mar4s 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Smarties 19:19, 20 April 2012 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Padorange 08:16, 21 April 2012 (BST)
- I approve this proposal. --Lübeck 16:02, 22 April 2012 (BST)
