marina preset: do not suggest to add unnecessary duplicative seamark tags

[matkoniecz]

seamark tagging scheme in general creates unneeded parallel tagging schema, there is no need to support it an bother user about it

[github-actions]

🍱 Preview the tagging presets of this pull request here: https://pr-899--ideditor-presets-preview.netlify.app/id/dist/#locale=en.

[tyrasd]

For reference: these tags were added in openstreetmap/iD#7622. See also #683

My first impression is that while potentially duplicating some information, the seamark tags don't generally hurt¹ and could be potentially useful for some data consumers like specialized renderers of water facilities. //cc @Eric-Sparks @k-yle @jsavage maybe one of you could give us some input on how these tags are used in practice?

However, from what I can see, leisure=marina could also be used with the value seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities, meaning that the tag might not always be the correct one. 🤔

Footnotes

1. Yes, it might be somewhat distracting to see the tag upgrade message on existing leisure=marina objects. But that could be prevented by replacing the addTags with a dedicated field for the seamark:type tag with an appropriate default value. ↩

[k-yle]

It would be a real shame to stop supporting seamark tags purely because the current design of iD's tag-upgrade warning is a bit intrusive :(

With this argument, should the warnings to add healthcare=* to amenity=* also be removed because they are two parallel tagging schemes?

There's a lot of things i don't like about seamark tags, but it's become well established and this is one of the very few cases where there is an equally popular tag in the normal tag system... There are very few marinas in the database, even in big coastal cities, so has anyone actually found this specific warning annoying?

[tyrasd]

To make it clear: this was not meant to stop supporting the seamark tags altogether. Only for specific cases (like for marinas), where their value could be implied by another tag might be "considered redundant".

But I think you have a very good point: Like in the healthcare case, we should consider the use-case specific tags (here: seamark:*) as the "main" tag of these presets, and the leisure/amenity tags should be considered as merely kept around for backwards compatibility. I wish the wiki could be more bold or explicit about this, though: Currently, the page for leisure=marina doesn't even mention the seamark:* tags at all.

You convinced me: I think, in general, keeping this as a proper tag upgrade does actually make sense to keep.

Any feedback on the marina_no_facilities value? A way to toggle between the two possible values (seamark:harbour:category=marina vs. seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities) should probably be at least available as a field, doesn't it?

[Eric-Sparks]

So, to be clear, leisure=marina doesn't have a 1:1 relationship with a seamark tag. seamark:harbour:category=marina means that the facility has services that a captain might be looking for. seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities means that the marina basically has a place to tie up. So, it is proper to have leisure=marina and the seamark at the same time since the seamark is more descriptive which is important to a maritime user.

I'm not sure how to automate such a seamark tag.

[matkoniecz]

In cases where it is not "always implies seamark:XYZ" then such "tag upgrade" (which BTW should be maybe renamed to make clear that it is automated and not very smart replacement) is damaging data.

the seamark tags don't generally hurt

Well, in cases where there specific tag always indicates some seamark tags then in such case they are pointless duplicates and pure waste of time to add them.

seamark: especially are irritating as they appear to basically have parallel tagging schema, with seamark:small_craft_facility:category=toilets being a good example of a problem.

the leisure/amenity tags should be considered as merely kept around for backwards compatibility

not really, amenity=toilets is in every way superior to seamark:small_craft_facility:category=toilets to take one example (and someone interested in only nearby toilets can just filter amenity=toilets rather having multiprefixed tags)

---

EDIT: And we do not have cyclist:category=toilets for public toilets nearby cycleways, we do not have motorist:category=toilets for toilets on rest areas of motorways and so on. We should not have seamark:small_craft_facility:category=toilets either.

[matkoniecz]

Any feedback on the marina_no_facilities value?

Is it still leisure=marina when you have no facilities whatsoever? In such cases I mapped anchorage/buoy moorings/moorings but no leisure=marina as there was no marina there (what makes me quite suspicious about also seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities but my sailing experience is not extensive)

I feel that it can encourage adding fake marinas where there is anchorage/berthing only (though maybe it is still a marina?)

[matkoniecz]

so has anyone actually found this specific warning annoying?

me, that is why I created this PR

[Eric-Sparks]

Any feedback on the marina_no_facilities value?

Is it still leisure=marina when you have no facilities whatsoever? In such cases I mapped anchorage/buoy moorings/moorings but no leisure=marina as there was no marina there (what makes me quite suspicious about also seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities but my sailing experience is not extensive)

Yes, it's still a marina. A marina implies a place to dock that isn't an anchorage that is open for non-owners to use. If there are facilities (and "facilities" has a wide meaning), then it is still a marina, it just has added amenities.

[Eric-Sparks]

not really, amenity=toilets is in every way superior to seamark:small_craft_facility:category=toilets to take one example (and someone interested in only nearby toilets can just filter amenity=toilets rather having multiprefixed tags)

You have to take this in context. seamark:small_craft_facility:category=toilets specifically calls out a toilet that is built/maintained for small craft users. It doesn't stop people from using other toilets or for non-boaters from using the toilet, but when you are looking at a sea map, you can see the facilities that are specifically for you (as a boater) or are amenities that are boater friendly. No filtering involved, the map is very simple and easy to look at.

[jsavage]

marina_no_facilities

Yes! I agree that the addition of "no_facilities" is meaningful - especially for sailors planning a route. Certainly in the UK, it is common place for toilet facilities not be for exclusive use of the users of the marinas not the general public so appropriate that they only appear as such in OpenSeaMap.

What I do this is a bit odd is the use of the term 'seamark' (presumably as opposed to landmark) for anything that needs to be included in OpenSeaMap that is is not in OpenStreetMap.

[tyrasd]

Hm… The not a 1:1 match argument by @matkoniecz is actually a valid critique here. 🤔 On the other hand I would also like to support openseamap tagging in iD wherever reasonably possible, which is made tricky because there does not seem to be a good way to bring the openseamap tags perfectly in line with the "standard" osm tags.

It is also a bit unfortunate is that the seamark tags are generally quite poorly defined/documented on the wiki, which makes it especially hard to evaluate this for people which are unfamiliar with the topic and/or domain specific terms. E.g., as a mapper, I wouldn't know what facilities to look out for when deciding which kind of marina it is.

---

What about the following solution: We keep the current tag upgrade of the leisure=marina preset (under the assumption that what mappers usually associate with leisure=marina does more commonly have "extra facilities" than not), and add a checkbox-field to de-select "has extra facilities"¹. At the same time we also add a preset for seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities which is titled Yacht Berths (see wiki) and has marina as one of its search terms.

Footnotes

1. again: a better description of which "extra facilities" are expected would be quite useful, though. ↩

[jsavage]

tyrasd commented that a better description of which "extra facilities" are expected would be quite useful. I interpret this as a request to clarify what facilities should be mapped in OpenSeaMap using seamarks.

In thinking about this I do think that mappers should realise that sailors and other seafarers typically have cruising guides, pilot books, almanacs and other documents that they can refer to when planning passages. These documents already provide details of the facilities that are available - albeit in different ways! One popular publication is Reeds Nautical Almanac.
This describes facilities at 3 levels of detail:
A qualitative rating for each harbour - eg facilities available:

1. Possibly some domestic facilities but little else.
2. Most domestic needs catered for but limited boatyard facilities
3. Good facilities for vessel and crew

For each harbour or marina a paragraph entitled Facilities:
This describes berthing options and facilities including berthing rates
Underneath this are relevant symbols for facilities available.

The symbols used for every harbour and marina covered within the 1000+ pages:

---

Other publications provide similar info. Often in much less detail than Reeds.

It seems to me that in relation to facilities, seafarers need to know:

1. What facilities are available <<<leave for the Almanacs to cover
2. Where these facilities are <<< Concentrate on this - and in particular the facilities that are approached by from the water Eg. Visitors berths. Fuel jetty, Refuse Barge, pump out facilities. In small marinas if they are all within 10 metres of each other then there may be little benefit in mapping these but in larger harbours mapping these is much more likely to be useful.
3. When (opening times) <<<leave for the Almanacs to cover
4. How (special instructions) <<<leave for the Almanacs to cover

I hope the above is of some help in this discussion

NB. I will add some images later to illustrate

[Eric-Sparks]

What about the following solution: We keep the current tag upgrade of the leisure=marina preset (under the assumption that what mappers usually associate with leisure=marina does more commonly have "extra facilities" than not), and add a checkbox-field to de-select "has extra facilities"1. At the same time we also add a preset for seamark:harbour:category=marina_no_facilities which is titled Yacht Berths (see wiki) and has marina as one of its search terms.

I think this would be a good solution.