<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>On 2018-09-28 07:37, Dave Swarthout wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div dir="ltr">The discussion about the definition of "reach" is interesting but IMO it's slightly off topic. Perhaps, because of those differences in its interpretation, we would be best served by not using the term at all. </div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">The point of raising the "reach" business it to help abstracting the proposed tagging model to make it more generic. If we consolidate all the thoughts expressed so far, we can say that:</div>
<div dir="ltr">* there can be contiguous linear sections of a river which can have names</div>
<div dir="ltr">* they can be "straight" (for example "reaches") or "curved" (for example "bends")</div>
<div dir="ltr">* they can (partially) overlap each other, and there may be gaps (there may not be a clear, sharp transition from one section to the next)</div>
<div dir="ltr">* they encompass the entire width of the river and are not just a 2D line</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">This is pointing towards:</div>
<div dir="ltr">* a way along the centre line of the river (colinear with the main_stream lines?)</div>
<div dir="ltr">* waterway=river_section</div>
<div dir="ltr">* river_section={reach,bend,...}</div>
<div dir="ltr">* name=*</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">Is this a basis that we can work incrementally forwards from?</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</body></html>