WikiProject Whitewater Maps/Proposals
| Whitewater Tags | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Abandoned (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Ashimema |
| Tagging: | tagging=see below |
| Applies to: |   
|
| Definition: | Expands upon proposals in WikiProject Whitewater Maps |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | OpenLayer, (much like OpenCycleMap) |
| Draft started: | 2009-12-29 |
| RFC start: | 2009-12-30 |
Proposal
While I feel the tagging scheme put forward in WikiProject Whitewater Maps is reasonably sensible, I do believe it could be simplified into less Keys applied across both Ways, Nodes and Areas as opposed to separate Key's for each element. Also, I would like this page to serve as the official vote for Whitewater tagging, bringing together many abandoned, incomplete and ill-conceived previous proposals. (It would be nice to Officialise the tags in use on WikiProject Whitewater Maps and write some basic Kay and Tag pages for them!
The following sub proposals have been added:
- Proposed features/Key:whitewater - for whitewater=* values put_in/egress/hazard
- Proposed_features/Key:whitewater:name
- Proposed_features/Key:whitewater:description
- Proposed_features/Key:whitewater:grade
Rationale
A community of (Kayakers, Canoeists, and Whitewater Rafters) can already be found on this Wiki and have started tagging rivers for human powered navigation. Having a definitive tagging system for them would be beneficial.
The tagging should not serve exclusively whitewater users but should be also usable to mark scenic water runs, added the grade "Waterfall"for this purpose and may add more.
Tagging
| Name | Type | Proposal | Icon | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | |
whitewater:grade=# | A | B | C | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | X | waterfall May be be followed by a '+' or '-'. Node to mark short rapid OR Way OR Area to mark river section. | |
| Name | |
whitewater:name=* | Widely Accepted Name of a Rapid OR River Section. (Not to be mistake with River Name (Which Should be tagged as name=*. | |
| Put in | |
whitewater=put_in |  |
A good/recommended/commonly used place to put in. Node placed on one side of the river (like a bus_stop is placed one side of a road). Remember to add name=name |
| Exit | |
whitewater=egress |  |
A good/recommended/commonly used place to take out. Node placed on one side of the river |
| Put in/exit | |
whitewater=put_in;egress |  |
|
| Hazard | |
whitewater=hazard |  |
minor or major hazard. Also use a description tag. Place node to indicate river left or river right, or use a mid-way node. |
| Description | |
whitewater:description=* | text of interest to canoeists |
TagInfo
The whitewater key has aready been used over 6.247 times (date November 29, 2020).
See also
Similar and Related Proposals can be found below:
Main whitewater page:
Comments
Please leave your comments on the overall proposal here, but comments regarding to the individual proposal making up this proposal should be made on the relevant pages (linked to in the table above);
Seems good to me :-) --Kavol 21:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Previous comments about whitewater tagging included a discussion about how to ensure mapping is useful for not just whitewater paddlers but also others. I think this is a sensible wish - but I also feel the existing whitewater tags are good and very appropriate for the sport. My suggestion is that we add an additional tag which can be used for non-whitewater situations: paddlecraft="put_in;egress". Rostranimin 09:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree to the tagging scheme. It should be changed to "Approved". Only with "approved" status it will be used more and can replace the inconvenient tagging waterway=rapids. --Federico Explorador (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Are the whitewater:rapid_* tags now deprecated? No big loss but we need some way to mark rapids and similar which are not interesting for whitewater sports. RicoZ (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)