Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dave F
Hi
I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
(4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.

Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=ford for the
reasons.

Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on
OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use.
That those discussions happened a few years ago, & you may not have been
involved, does not negate the reasons for the swap.

Cheers
DaveF

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote:
> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.

It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at
the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
upset!

> Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on
> OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use.

It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just
claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a
few years ago" and now.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Neil Matthews
In reply to this post by Dave F
Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways
joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined
at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section,
or a note for local mappers to check?

Cheers,

Neil


On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
> Hi
> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a
> heads up.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Andy Townsend
On 06/01/2019 09:51, Neil Matthews wrote:
> Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways
> joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined
> at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section,
> or a note for local mappers to check?

A change of ways would be tricky, but according to taginfo data for the
UK this will be nodes only -
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/highway=ford shows 645 nodes,
no ways.  FWIW https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=ford shows
2 ways only so I suspect that someone has already tidied those (I
certainly had a go at updating any that I was familiar with many years
ago to an appropriate highway type).  82 of the 645 have both ford=yes
and highway=ford (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0w ).

Picking an example near me,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1467099600/history I'd suggest needs
a resurvey, but only because it's 7 years since anyone's been there and
someone might have put a bridge in, not because it wasn't a "ford=yes" 7
years ago.  A bit of the history of the issue can be seen on that node -
a previous mechanical edit 6 years ago
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14211906 was reverted in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14236131 .  At the time many
commonly-used maps didn't understand ford=yes so a mechanical edit with
no discussion created quite a few complaints.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Martin Wynne
In reply to this post by Dave F
On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
> I'm about to do a GB wide edit

As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed,
how does it get decided who should do it?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dan S
Hi Martin,

It's a bit of a do-ocracy - you can take the initiative yourself, but
you should follow the code of conduct, which includes discussing it
with the right local groups and giving time for comments on the edit
you want to make. See the instructions here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Cheers
Dan

Op zo 6 jan. 2019 om 11:24 schreef Martin Wynne <[hidden email]>:

>
> On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
> > I'm about to do a GB wide edit
>
> As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed,
> how does it get decided who should do it?
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dave F
In reply to this post by Neil Matthews
I should have clarified the 545 highway=ford tags to be changed are all
nodes.
92 of those also have the ford=yes tag (Red)

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0z

Check out Duddon Sands PROWs. That looks far too risky
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0C

Cheers
DaveF



On 06/01/2019 09:51, Neil Matthews wrote:

> Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways
> joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined
> at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section,
> or a note for local mappers to check?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
>
> On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
>> Hi
>> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
>> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
>> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a
>> heads up.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dave F
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm

On 06/01/2019 09:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote:
>> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
>> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
>> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.
> It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at
> the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
> uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
> upset!

Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the
increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous
data. It started as a concern over mass 'bot' edits, but has now spread
to any kind of amendments over a certain area. There's more concern over
an edit's geographical size than what's actually being edited. That
can't be right.

Claims (I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly) such as 'I didn't know
about discussions', 'I wasn't involved in those discussions' & 'I want
OSM to remain the same as when I first started' are not valid arguments.

>
>> Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on
>> OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use.
> It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just
> claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a
> few years ago" and now.

I disagree. I provided evidence of the conclusions of those discussions
& indication of which was more popular in Britain. Anyone who has
concerns over that could perform their own research. Of course, an easy
way to search the archives would be beneficial.

>
> Bye
> Frederik
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Martin Wynne
>> the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
>> uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
>> upset!
>
> Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the
> increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous
> data.

Well that depends on who decides it's erroneous?

 From this page:

  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

"Note also that documentation of tagging on the Wiki is not the final
arbiter of 'correct' tagging."

Treating a ford as a single node strikes me as a bit daft when if you
zoom in on the map it clearly occupies a mappable area between the
various property boundaries and the entry and exit points on the highway.

We are instructed to "map what we see", and the fords in this area are
definitely bigger than a single point such as a lamp-post or postbox. Is
landuse=ford acceptable?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Edward Catmur
It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is mapped as an area. 

Apropos of not much, I wonder whether the ford is relevant for water-based routing along the river. Perhaps to canoes and hovercraft... 

In any case the point where the highway intersects the thalweg should be tagged with something to indicate that it is not in error. That is, where a highway and a river cross there should either be a node tagged as a ford, or either the river or the highway should be tagged as bridge or tunnel (and there should be no node at the intersection). 

With regard to the automated edit, I'd like to know:
- does this fix or solve anything (ie for data consumers), or is it just to make data consistent? 
- what are you doing to nodes that have both highway=ford and ford=*? 
- what are you going to do to prevent more highway=ford nodes being created in future? 

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019, 14:25 Martin Wynne <[hidden email] wrote:
>> the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
>> uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
>> upset!
>
> Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the
> increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous
> data.

Well that depends on who decides it's erroneous?

 From this page:

  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

"Note also that documentation of tagging on the Wiki is not the final
arbiter of 'correct' tagging."

Treating a ford as a single node strikes me as a bit daft when if you
zoom in on the map it clearly occupies a mappable area between the
various property boundaries and the entry and exit points on the highway.

We are instructed to "map what we see", and the fords in this area are
definitely bigger than a single point such as a lamp-post or postbox. Is
landuse=ford acceptable?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dave F


On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote:
> It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the
> river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the
> same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is
> mapped as an area.
>
> Apropos of not much, I wonder whether the ford is relevant for
> water-based routing along the river. Perhaps to canoes and hovercraft...

There are quite a few highways that have streams of water running along
them, used by walkers, bike riders as well as motor vehicles. This is
where ford=yes as a way is appropriate, as indicated on the wiki.

>
> In any case the point where the highway intersects the thalweg should
> be tagged with something to indicate that it is not in error. That is,
> where a highway and a river cross there should either be a node tagged
> as a ford, or either the river or the highway should be tagged as
> bridge or tunnel (and there should be no node at the intersection).
>
> With regard to the automated edit, I'd like to know:
> - does this fix or solve anything (ie for data consumers), or is it
> just to make data consistent?

Both. The 'standard' map doesn't render highway=ford. Constancy avoids
confusion, making things easier to comprehend, & reduces errors.

> - what are you doing to nodes that have both highway=ford and ford=*?
removing highway=ford, as they're all nodes.

> - what are you going to do to prevent more highway=ford nodes being
> created in future?

Nothing, other than what's already in place.
I've not checked all editors but highway=ford default was removed from
Potlatch & never included in iD (I believe). JOSM flags it as a
'deprecated tag' error message on upload. And wiki is clear.

However, contributors (especially newbies) copy tags they see others
have already added, assuming it's correct practice. Removing abandoned
tags will greatly reduce the likelihood of them returning.


DaveF



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Martin Wynne
On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote:
 > It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the
river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the
same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is
mapped as an area.

Thanks Edward.

But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on
the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out,
or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of
your nose.

For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me,
over the River Rea at Neen Savage:

  https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891

That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I have added an area
of it as landuse=ford where it is also an area of road.

I have been mapping local waterways as areas, where both banks are shown
as such on OS OpenData. It is a tedious process because river banks are
usually so wiggly. So I do a bit at a time as my time permits.

Which raises another question -- what is the correct temporary tagging
for "this is where I've got to, I will come back and do some more soon,
I know it's not finished"?

cheers,

Martin.




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dave F


On 06/01/2019 16:44, Martin Wynne wrote:
> For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me,
> over the River Rea at Neen Savage:
>
>  https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2
>
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891
>
> That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I have added an
> area of it as landuse=ford where it is also an area of road.

The ford is only the highway across the river. That's mapped correctly
as a way with a ford=yes tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/660938519

I'd delete your area & the ford=yes node. I'd also add a weir tag to the
downstream side to indicate the sudden drop in water level.

> I have been mapping local waterways as areas, where both banks are
> shown as such on OS OpenData. It is a tedious process because river
> banks are usually so wiggly. So I do a bit at a time as my time permits.

To your natural=water I'd add the complimentary tag water=river to make
it easier for data consumers to find just rivers.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water gives a variety of options.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Michael Booth
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come
through to my inbox.

I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a
automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual
instance first before retagging.

I've just looked at some of the highway=ford nodes, and a number of them
could do fixing/improving other things as well. For example there's a
ford tag but the roads visible on bing haven't been added, with some the
road and waterway aren't connected, and on others there's a ford tag on
a road but no waterway running through it.

So let's get the tag updated but not as a find/replace exercise - do it
as a UK project, maproulette or whatever so that these other issues can
be fixed as well.

On 06/01/2019 09:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote:
>> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
>> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
>> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.
> It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at
> the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
> uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
> upset!
>
>> Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on
>> OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use.
> It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just
> claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a
> few years ago" and now.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Martin Wynne
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne
On 06/01/2019 20:47, Edward Catmur wrote:

>> But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on
>> the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out,
>> or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of
>> your nose.
>
> To me the issue is one of consistency - it feels a bit odd to map one
> feature in detail if features around it aren't similarly mapped. OTOH when
> adding detail you have to stop somewhere. So on second thoughts go ahead -
> it's great that you're doing this. Just bear in mind that it's better to
> map something - even if it's just a node ford with no width, length or
> depth - than nothing at all.

Well you can't detail everything in one go, you have to start somewhere.
I try to go back to the map and add as much detail as I can from time to
time, from photos, notes, etc.

If you just want something - anything will do, I don't see the point in
bothering. There are plenty of other maps with that -- Google, Bing, OS.

The whole point of OSM is that you can build up a proper detailed record
of an area, and each mapper can add their own expertise. If I add all
the river banks, someone else can add all the telegraph poles.

 >> Which raises another question -- what is the correct temporary
tagging for "this is where I've got to, I will come back and do some
more soon, I know it's not finished"?
 >>
 >
 > Possibly fixme=continue? It's often used as a suggestion to other
mappers, but there's nothing to stop you using it as a reminder to yourself.

Thanks, but "fixme" sounds like a request for help, which is not what
I'm saying. I know what's wanted and I intend to do it in due course --
I may have some relevant photos or notes. Which is not to prevent anyone
else doing it first of course.

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Dave F
In reply to this post by Michael Booth
On 06/01/2019 19:52, Michael Booth wrote:
> Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come
> through to my inbox.


>
> I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a
> automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual
> instance first before retagging.
>
> I've just looked at some of the highway=ford nodes, and a number of
> them could do fixing/improving other things as well. For example
> there's a ford tag but the roads visible on bing haven't been added,
> with some the road and waterway aren't connected, and on others
> there's a ford tag on a road but no waterway running through it.
>
> So let's get the tag updated but not as a find/replace exercise - do
> it as a UK project, maproulette or whatever so that these other issues
> can be fixed as well.

Just to be clear to everybody, my proposed edit will not create or solve
any issues. It's a simple transference from one tag to another.

I fail to see how "other existing issues" make it a reason not to
perform the edit.

Indeed, performing the edit will make it *easier* to do what Michael
proposes as *all* fords will have the same tag. (And they'll be rendered
on the 'standard' map)

DaveF

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Mike Baggaley
In reply to this post by Dave F
I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines).

Regards,
Mike

On 06/01/2019 16:44, Martin Wynne wrote:
> For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me,
> over the River Rea at Neen Savage:
>
>  https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2
>
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891
>
> That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I have added an
> area of it as landuse=ford where it is also an area of road.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

David Woolley
On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote:
> I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines).

I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line.
If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed
mapping.

I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and
tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Mike Baggaley
On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote:
> I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines).

I spent a bit of time looking at how people mapped fords when I updated
the rendering on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html to
support fords mapped as ways.

There were examples were people had mapped the way perpendicular to the
water (e.g.
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=52.6509984&lon=-1.2567927 
) and also "long fords" where the two are one and the same (e.g.
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20&lat=53.1373688&lon=-1.468014 
).  I didn't find much (any?) area usage.

Both types of mapping are pretty logical, though, as is "just add it as
a node at the intersection".

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

Edward Catmur
In reply to this post by David Woolley


On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 13:56 David Woolley <[hidden email] wrote:
On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote:
> I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines).

I would say that it should not be mapped as a node on the centre line.
If data consumers want that, they can infer it from the more detailed
mapping.

I would say that fords are conceptually quite similar to bridges and
tunnels, and people don't generally map those as points.

However there is an intersection between two lines on the same level (the centreline and the thalweg) which is suitable for tagging as a node. It's a bit like mapping highway crossings. Or maybe railway level crossings - but do we map those as a way or area yet? 


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
12