<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jul 21, 2020, 10:55 by tomasstraupis@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:<br></div><blockquote><div>Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that<br></div><div>waterway=riverbank is preferred?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as<br></div><div>natural=water, reservoirs as landuse=reservoir, riverbanks as<br></div><div>waterway=riverbank etc. It is a perfectly working schema.<br></div><div><br></div><div> At some point there was a new schema proposed with a totally nerdy<br></div><div>motivation "to make some sql's simpler". That new schema has no<br></div><div>advantage in cartography, GIS or IT sense. <br></div></blockquote><div>It has some advantages, probably not sufficient to justify it.<br></div><div>But it actually makes "find all water areas" less troublesome.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>It is totally NERDY.<br></div></blockquote><div>What you mean by that?<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>