Proposal talk:Banks

Under "use case example" you say "It's currently impossible (or very hard ?) to have such a rendering (ie a smooth junction between the river and the lake)". This statement simply isn't true. There are thousands of cases where there rivers and lakes meet, and the rendering is correct (for instance here, here) .Dmgroom 11:01, 14 September 2012 (BST)

My sentence wasn't clear at all. I was refering to banks rendering (thin dark blue line on my exemple), not the light blue of the water. sletuffe 11:49, 14 September 2012 (BST)

Now I understand. Dmgroom 12:10, 14 September 2012 (BST)

Other tags

Why do we want to render the line? Basically, because it's a barrier (both for boats and pedestrians). So instead of introducing a new key, maybe it would be better to introduce an extension to the barrier key.

The German wikipedia page has a nice subdivision when it comes to banks: [1] I would take Wiese and Strand into one, as (from a barrier point of view), they are pretty much the same.

So that would make 3 types of barriers that can be used on the banks:

• barrier=retaining_wall -> the most steepest barrier, completely vertical and in concrete. This is already used for retaining walls on the ground, but there is little to no difference in meaning when you would use it for water. To get out of the water, you need a ladder.
• barrier=slope -> quite steep, but you can normally walk or crawl up. Sometimes there are steps provided to get out and in.
• barrier=shore -> not steep at all, you can just walk in or out the water without problem.

You can also introduce a tag barrier:type=natural/man_made if you think the difference between a man_made bank and a natural bank is important.

When using barriers, you don't have two of the three problems you mentioned in Proposed_features/banks#problems_to_solve_.28or_not.29, and you can even use it in combination with coastline (which looks quite natural to me).

What do you think? --Sanderd17 11:42, 4 October 2012 (BST)

Very good ! To be honnest, I don't care that much of the main tag used, I just proposed natural because that's what was used for sea shores (natural=coastline. However, I don't like the use of barrier=retaining_wall because it is allready used for Retaining walls serve to retain the lateral pressure of soil. Right side is bottom, left side is top which mean your proposition is conflicting a little bit with the "implied" current definition of retaining_wall which is about ground VS ground, not ground VS water. Your argument is not wrong about saying it's almost the same, but if one wants to render a blue line for ground/water separation, that's gone be hard to make distinction. What about making the fact it's about water explicit ? like barrier=shore_retaining_wall or, other idea keep the main tag as barrier=shore + barrier:incline=vertical or barrier:incline=slope or, if someone really wants to make it extra explicit barrier:incline=value° ? sletuffe 11:57, 4 October 2012 (BST)

Maybe retaining_wall is indeed against the implied definition, I have nothing against a new value. I do prefer to have three separate values instead of one barrier=shore. To me, that incline subkey is just too much information. Sometimes, the incline also changes, or vertical isn't completely vertical, but just very steep (yet not climbable). The difference of the following makes the most sense to me:

• is it natural to walk out of the water? yes -> shore
• is it natural to crawl (on hands and feet) out of the water? yes? -> slope
• do you need a ladder? yes -> shore_retaining_wall

Off coarse, the values can be changed (I'm no native speaker), but I think this subdivision is a good one.

--Sanderd17 12:28, 4 October 2012 (BST)

Activity

Is anyone planning to resurrect this proposal? I am planning to mark it as inactive Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)