Talk:Tag:waterway=fish pass
Add link to wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder Lot of free pictures :-)
Suggested definition (from wikipedia)
A [fish ladder, also known as a fishway, fish pass or fish steps, is a] structure on or around artificial barriers (such as dams and locks) to facilitate [diadromous] fishes natural migration.
- I think this definition is really nice, I'm replacing it. sletuffe (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Usagae on areas
Regarding this revert. This tag should not be used on areas. This is a linear feature like waterway=river|stream|ditch|drain|canal and should be drawn in the flow direction of the water. The german page was first and it was inaccurately translated to english respectivly the english page was then further changed to a more misleading description. When you draw it as area then this is additionally to the linear waterway. The area is then tagged with natural=water + water=fish_pass and the linear way with waterway=fish_pass. Note that these are 3 different tags.--Klumbumbus (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oups, I'm sorry, you are right. I don't know why but I'm the one who miss read the page. The "on areas" part should go on a different page for the tag water=fish_pass if needed sletuffe (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I adjusted the description.--Klumbumbus (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Resolved Use waterway=canal + usage=fish_pass
More recently this year, Hydropower water supplies proposal move spillways to waterway=canal + usage=spillway. It would be consistent to introduce waterway=canal + usage=fish_pass to free waterway=* from an additional value.
How do you feel about this? Fanfouer (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- A fish pass is not a canal! BTW: Is there any specific benefit of freeing waterway from values?--Norcross (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- As we were discussing about spillways, it appears that introducing waterway=spillway didn't get a good support.
- A canal is a open flow waterway carrying useful water, according to waterway=canal.
- The point is to not mix usage and construction in the same tag. A canal can be built to be used as a fish pass, like the same canal can be built to act as a spillway or for transportation purposes. Fanfouer (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- You want to abolish your own proposal (which I think is very well thought) just because one powerful person – Mateusz Konieczny – dislikes it? My advice: Stand your ground!--Norcross (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, point isn't my particular proposal but consistency about tagging.
- fish_pass is not a nature of waterway but a usage and these two shouldn't mix in a single OSM key. That's why I don't like waterway=fish_pass nor waterway=spillway any more since discussion shows consistent ideas to document. Fanfouer (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- You want to abolish your own proposal (which I think is very well thought) just because one powerful person – Mateusz Konieczny – dislikes it? My advice: Stand your ground!--Norcross (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Fish passes are built for a single purpose, so it futile to say that's a usage. There are dozens of different forms how a fish pass can be built, so IMHO it's better to classify them all by their function.--Norcross (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Link to upstream and downstream waterway
I presume the waterway=fish_pass should be linked to e.g. the waterway=river before and after the fish pass. But how should the way linking the river (or whatever) waterway and the fish pass waterway be tagged? For routing purposes for footways we can use highway=footway; footway=link. I feel like a waterway=link tag might be useful?