<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br /><br /><br />28. May 2018 02:22 by <a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">Why not add the tag water=yes to all waterways and lakes etc?<br /></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Because it adds no useful info?</p><p> <br /></p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">About as usefull as the tag intermittent now as it means any waterway that might not have water in it .. at any time.<br /><br />Most waterways dry up in droughts .. so even those waterways regarded as perennial can now be tagged intermittent.<br /></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Everything tagged in OSM is not true in extreme situation. Car crash may cause passable road to</p><p>not be passable, tunnel may be blocked by an avalanche, shop may be closed during strike,</p><p>waterway may have no water during unusual extreme drought or during some weird</p><p>hydro-engineering like dropping outflow from a dam to zero.<br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">So I now regard the intermittent tag as having no usefull information</blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I consider it as an useful information to distinguish permanent waterways and waterbodies</p><p>from nonpernament.<br /></p> </body>
</html>