<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>Dec 16, 2020, 19:27 by kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the information that I had.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>That is sign of bad tagging scheme.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div>I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the Wiki. <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Is it enough?<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div>I asked here on the mailing list, and the only answers that I got were along the lines of "then don't map it." So for several years I haven't attempted to map rapids. The ones I know of and want to render, I maintain separately from OSM, because the previous discussion had caused me to label this feature mentally as, "OSM doesn't want this mapped."<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>:( Hopefully this can be fixed so this will not happen.<br></div> </body>
</html>