Hello,

I'll take another look at the possibility of routing with synthesized lines as you mention. Hopefully I'm over estimating the complexity.

As for your particular route, it will actually be route-able in the next few days on PaddleMap as I happened to update the portages over the weekend. 🙂

Another issue you might face even when there is a waterway mapped is canoeing obstructions. Take for example this route on the Songdalselva which seems like it should be fine https://paddlemap.net/#map=12/58.2168/7.7248/standard,waterways,opentrailmap-canoe-pois,opentrailmap-canoe&lonlats=7.698669,58.242843;7.850761,58.141278

This is caused by the waterfall node/11215088987 You can override this by tweaking the parameters in the paddle routing profile or switch to the waterway profile. However, it would be nice to have a feature to easily debug that.

Cheers,
scarapella

Hello,

I'm with you on canoe=no feeling quite absolute. I often find myself tagging canoe=discouraged for very similar reasons. Although if I think about the most I can get from a map is what difficulty the rapids are since rapids=3 vs. rapids=4 is quite different. So I try to tag that when I can. Otherwise, people will make a decision when they see it.

I would love it if paddlemap supported routing without flowlines. In general I like the idea of flowlines and think they should be mapped. I mean every governmental waterway database I'm aware of (Canada, Europe, US) all include flowlines. However, in practice tons of them are missing in osm, so routing without them would be great. The real solution (to dynamically infer them) is non-trivial from a coding perspective. So maybe someday. The only trivial solution I've thought of is to route along the way that describes the natural=water area (a bit like happens with pedestrian areas). But that is unsatisfying and relies on people intersecting the waterway=* with the natural=water.

for #2 do you have a specific route link I can troubleshoot just give me a link.

Cheers,
scarapella

P.S. I'm findable on OSMUS slack (often) and OSM discord (in theory, but less in practice) if you use either of those.

Hi balchen,

Purely FYI, canoe=portage on a waterway=* is absolutely a documented way to indicate "don't canoe on this waterway". However, it's not commonly and not well supported by data consumers. canoe=no on waterway=* is a more commonly used tag.

Cheers,
scarapella

I have to admit the root cause is probably PEBKAC...

Yes, you are correct. The (anti-) pattern in iD I must have executed was

* update resource=gravel using the resources box (and not the tag box)
* press [tab] in a vain attempt to move selection off of element, but instead move to next resource in list
* press [2] as new line shortcut, but instead enter a resource type of "2"

I'll be sure to add it to my personal qa query on overpass.

Thanks as always for your help,
scarapella

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. Your intuition was right ";2" was a typo on my part. Fixed via changeset/187081409 and comment closed.

Thanks again for your diligence and precision,
scarapella

P.S. It is a slightly surprising typo as it wasn't simply appending "2" to the end of the value. Which is caused when i try to create a new line before move focus properly off the edit box. But a typo it was nonetheless.

No worries. There are a lot of tags out there and sometimes multiple different tags you can can use for the same thing. 🤷

I updated as proposed and added a few canoe features while I was at it.
changeset/186878292#map=13/41.94337/-72.06286

Happy Mapping,
scarapella

No worries. All cleaned up changeset/186877711

Happy Mapping,
scarapella

Hi NE_SwampYankee,

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. I came across this changeset because I was looking for waterways tagged waterway=yes, which is relatively uncommon and hard to interpret from a data consumer's perspective.

For the way way/1222772364 can I propose waterway=flowline instead of waterway=yes ?

Cheers,
scarapella

Hi aseigo,

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. I was looking for cases of node where waterway=flowline when I came across this wetland
way/1430538583

All of the nodes in this area have the tag waterway=flowline. I suspect this was a typo, but before I cleaned it up I wanted to check to see if you had something in mind I missed.

Cheers,
scarapella

Hi Andreas,

I see nothing wrong with having emergency portages around canoe-able locks. Just as there is nothing wrong with wearing both belt and suspenders. Both are just choices of fashion. 😉

Cheers,
Sean

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for pointing this out. My (incorrect) inference for canoe=no was based on
* the presence of portage from previous mappers
* a lack of clear strava heatmap signature through the logs
* the fact that on average worldwide, most locks do not allow canoes (although this is clearly not a hard and fast rule).

I've reversed that access based on your timely comments changeset/186505567

Cheers,
Sean

Hi zystef,

Thanks for your contributions to openstreetmap. It is great to find other people mapping canoe features.

Purely FYI, I updated one of the portages you created on the Flambeau River changeset/186500074 with a canoe=no restriction on the waterway=river as it crosses the dam. That let's routing engines (e.g. on https://paddlemap.net/) know to send canoeist to the portage and not over the dam.

Cheers,
scarapella

My apologies. I didn't notice the dam was already mapped. It didn't occur to me that a highway=* would also be tagged as a waterway=dam.

Wouldn't it be better to split the two into different elements for clarity.

For example:
* the name=* element is now Barrage Sartigan, but I supposed the name of the road is actually Rue du Barrage-Sartigan across the dam as well on both banks
* the way is tagged as bridge=yes and a waterway=dam.

Cheers,
scarapella

👍

Hi ratmice,

The two changes I did here were to connect the portage to the waterway (with waterway=access_point) and mark the river as it crosses the dam as canoe=no. This allows the proper routing of canoes around the dam (e.g. on https://paddlemap.net/)

You are right that the current geometry is a a compromise. I've thought about these situations and have come eventually to a conclusion similar to yours: Ideally the river would be surrounded by a natural=water area, the portage trail would end at the natural=water and a waterway=link would connect the portage trail to the river. However, it's a lot of work to add the natural=water area... so if it doesn't exist connecting the portage directly to the river is the best compromise.

Cheers,
scarapella

Hi Andreas,

You are absolutely correct, the documentation is consistent. I went too quickly in my (re-)reading and conflated waterway=portage with canoe=portage. Sorry about that. 🤦

While the canoe=portage documentation is consistent, the problem is that waterway=portage is almost entirely unused (14 way instances) and probably should be deprecated if it's not already. The de facto standard here is waterway=link (>14,000 way instances) with canoe=yes as appropriate.

Apologies again for any confusion caused by my inattentive reading.

Cheers,
Sean

Hi heiglandreas,

Let me preface this by saying I don't really like the canoe=portage tagging. I much prefer canoe=yes or canoe=no on waterway=* or nodes such as waterway=access_point and portage=yes on highway=* However, I am trying to see what the use is to see how/if I should interpret it in a project I am working on.

Your comments made me go back and re-read the documentation for canoe=portage on the wiki. I realize now it is... totally inconsistent.

On one hand it says
* "For a waterway=* that is not navigable, but that can circumvented by carrying the canoe over land, add canoe=portage to indicate this — do not tag the waterway=* leading up the portage detour with this tag though! "

on the other hand, 2 lines later, it says has this contradictory statement:
* "For boat trolleys and pulley systems Connect the end of the portage (the rails or pulley system) to the waterbodies' center line with the tag waterway=portage to add the possiblity of routing along this connection."

Globally there are only 14 waterways attached to highways with canoe=portage https://maps.mail.ru/osm/tools/overpass/?q=W291dDpqc29uXVt0aW1lxIHEgzMwMF0vKltiYm94Ont7xJjEmn19XSovOwoKLy8gMS4gR2F0aGVyIGFsbCB3xLDEs8S6eXMKxL1bY2Fub2U9cG9ydGFnZcSJxLp0xLxheV0tPi7EtmxXxLtyxL1zxKbEqMSqMsStRXh0cmFjdCBPTkxZIMSxZSBzxYzFi8S1bmQgZcW6IMWFZGVzIG9mxbJob3PFtMWRxZPEvgrGgGUod8WZxLfFnMWSxZ7FlHM6MSwtMSnFly7GjMaYeV_FvWTFiWludMWgxKfEqSAzxK1oaWdoxZ_EtXTFjGPEssW7dG_Gh8aJxbTGpyDGqcarxL_EvShibsaixZ3EvcamxbrHhcasKVvGs8a1xL3FlsWYx5XGtsaZxaHFoiA0xK11bmnEh8aExobGkMaDxqogx5rGtyvEuceNxZTFvMeQb8aqxqzGj2_GgcaSLsesxpkpx4zGl8eOxqfHkXPGocajyIHHs8e1c19jxIduZcWrZWRfxr5fx7zEvsWhxq81xK3IhsaZIMiMbsiOyJDGvca_yJbHh8WUx4nHi8icxqXIgse0x4bIi8iNyI_FksiSyJTIpceTyKpdxaHEjyDEjcWMxKY-xKbIunNrZcS4cXQ7&c=BRVLjDlGDF

So I'd guess most people only read the first line and not the second (like me).

Cheers,
Sean

Hello @Decorator1

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap. I'm always happy to see people adding canoeing features.

I noticed one of the waterway=link touched in this changeset has a canoe=portage tag

way/833155157

canoe=portage on a waterway technically means that you cannot use that waterway for boating and should portage. In all these cases I think that canoe=yes is more what you intended.

Cheers,
scarapella

P.S. While canoe=portage on waterways is documented as a way to indicate the waterway is not suitable for canoeing, it is relatively rare and I am not aware of any implementation that supports it. canoe=no is much more widely used and supported in several implementations including https://paddlemap.net/ https://opentrailmap.us/

Hello @heiglandreas,

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap. In this changeset you changed several several waterway=link from canoe=yes to canoe=portage

for example way/1222514682

canoe=portage on a waterway technically means that you cannot use that waterway for boating and should portage. In all these cases I think that canoe=yes is/was the more accepted tagging.

Cheers,
scarapella

P.S. While canoe=portage on waterways is documented as a way to indicate the waterway is not suitable for canoeing, it is rare and I am not aware of any implementation that supports it. canoe=no is much more widely used and supported in several implementations including https://paddlemap.net/ https://opentrailmap.us/