water: render waterway=fish_pass

[TheJJ]

Fixes #2895

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Render waterway=fish_pass

I don't have tested this at all and I still need to figure out how to produce a test rendering :)

[HolgerJeromin]

At least

openstreetmap-carto/project.mml

Line 180 in 42a6baf

WHERE waterway IN ('stream', 'drain', 'ditch')

and line 220 (and others) seems to be missing.

[imagico]

Thanks for the PR. We generally require PRs to be tested and examples of before and after rendering to be shown to allow a quick assessment of what the change tries to achieve. This does not necessarily have to be done by the person submitting the PR of course. When you implement a change with visual impact on the rendering it is generally highly advisable to visually check the results.

[TheJJ]

Definitely 😄 I just wanted to get the ball rolling.
What would be the simplest possible way to test the changes? Apart from of course somebody with the setup in place creating the renders.

[pitdicker]

Looks good to me.

Before (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.49547/6.58054):

After:

[TheJJ]

Done, merged the sections!

[TheJJ]

bump bamp, what is remaining to bring this upstream?

[jeisenbe]

It looks like @pitdicker approved this in a prior review. Does anyone else have time to test this?

[imagico]

This seems to work as intended.

As long as we render waterway=stream and waterway=ditch/drain differently (see #2346) i think it would be more logical to have waterway=fish_pass match the rendering of waterway=ditch/drain and not waterway=stream.

Apart from that i think this is something we can add, i am just somewhat wondering if it would be better to render waterway=fish_pass like waterway bridges rather than like a plain waterway. This would make fish passes in the middle of a river across a weir for example visible. Like:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/714071249
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466865795
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993880729
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285989535

I am not sure about this given the different styles in mapping that exist (see #2895 (comment)) - so just a thought, not a request for changes.

[TheJJ]

rebased. somebody with a working setup please test :)

@imagico what exactly should be changed so it's more logical regarding to streams/ditch/drain and fish_pass?

[imagico]

Setting this as draft. It requires

• changing rendering of waterway=fish_pass to match that of waterway=ditch/waterway=drain rather than waterway=stream as it does at the moment (or alternatively: fixing rendering of waterway=ditch/drain incentivizes bad mapping #2346).
• practical testing and samples.
• optionally: evaluation if this would work better when rendered like a wayterway bridge rather than a normal waterway so fish passes within a riverbank polygon (for example across a weir) are visible.