<div dir="ltr"><div>Referring to this half-sentence in the Brook discussion page:</div><div>"
This tag breaks with the basic convention of waterway tagging that
distinction between natural and artificial waterways is a primary
criterion."</div><div><br></div><div>The reason why I am asking, that in my part of the world (Western Europe), the only not at-least partially artificial waterways are mountain water courses, and that only partially.</div><div>All others are more or less artificial. If you want a particularly big example: the River Rhine between Basel and Mainz is <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinbegradigung">practically completely man-made</a>.</div><div>Most of the rivers around where I live in the lower Po valley have their course at least defined by man_made embankments.</div><div>Examples: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2220829">River</a><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2220829"> Brenta</a>, <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2220827">River Bacchiglione</a>. (The Bacchilgione appears split into two bits because the missing bits go by different names)<br></div><div>Both consist of stretches that are meandering of sorts, always protected by high embankments and linear stretches that are clearly man-made, always accompanied by embankments. The same goes for many other rivers. <br></div><div>
Even in the mountains, many waterways have parts that are natural, and parts that are man made (straight) (<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49513008">Example</a>)
</div><div>What is the correct tagging? <br></div><div>Do I tag segments according to their shape as "river" or "canal" along the same waterway? <br></div><div>Do embankments, closely following a river on both sides, qualify this waterway as a canal?</div><div>Do I go by name?<br></div><div><br></div><div>So I have major doubts on this "basic" difference.</div><div>Even the criterion of free-flowing downhill does not help, as all water flows downhill, unless pumped uphill, be that a river (very big pumps) or a ditch.(small pumps)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Yours truly confused <br></div><div><br></div><div>Volker<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 16:55, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mi., 30. Dez. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Stefan Tauner <<a href="mailto:stefan.tauner@gmx.at" target="_blank">stefan.tauner@gmx.at</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 14:59:59 +0000<br>
Philip Barnes <<a href="mailto:phil@trigpoint.me.uk" target="_blank">phil@trigpoint.me.uk</a>> wrote:<br> > I have never used this tag however the wiki definition has widely<br>
> missed the common usage of the word brook by a country mile.<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothley_Brook" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothley_Brook</a><br>
> <br>
> A brook as I understand it from growing up in areas where the term is<br>
> commonly used, it is never intermittent.<br>
> <br>
> A brook is between a stream and a river. Usually too wide to jump but<br>
> certainly too shallow or small for boats or to swim in. Deep enough to<br>
> fall in and get soaked, something I used to do regularly as a child.<br>
<br>
I think this is quite accurately captured by waterway=stream but we may<br>
want to refine the definition regarding "jumpability" a bit. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>the given brook definition actually means that not a single waterway=stream would cover it, they would all be rivers. Only if the stream definition was "refined" aka completely changed they might cover it. I usually stop reading at the point where someone proposes to completely redefine an established and long standing definition for a major feature. It just isn't sufficiently realistic to merit a second thought, similar to your hiking club planning a hike to the moon ;-)</div><div>Anyway, I invite you to have a second thought: how could we organize the review of 14 million waterway=stream objects plus 1.5 million rivers, that would have to be reviewed after we give up the main criterion for distinction and set a different one? What timeframe would be suitable? What are the benefits?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Martin<br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>