<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body style="font-family:Arial;font-size:14px">
<p>Hello everyone,</p>
<div> </div>
<div>this concerns the usage of `waterway=riverbank` and `natural=water; water=river` which are currently considered equivalent and thus redundant (taking the wiki and observed usage as reference). I hope that we can find a consensus on how to improve this (certanly minor, but present) nuisance for the benefit of simplying the canon (both for mappers & data users).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some of us had a short discussion of this matter on IRC, I try to incorporate the perspectives that I could make out into the mail.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There appears to be no disagreement that, due to this being redundant (opinions to the contrary have been postulated, but I don't know of an actual case where they are not redundant), the redundancy would optimally be resolved by removing one or the other.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Personally, I am of the opinion that `waterway=riverbank` would be the candidate for removal, because it has certain shortcomings which `water=river` does not:</div>
<div> </div>
<div> 1. `waterway=*` is predominantly used to indicate the the location and topology of flowing waters, not the extent, but `riverbank` does not fit that description</div>
<div> 2. it is, by name a waterWAY, while the extents of a river are an area</div>
<div> 3. it refers to bodies of WATER, whereas a riverbank in the actual (geographical) sense is not the river's water area, but includes a larger margin</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The main point that has been brought up against deprecating `riverbank`, so I understood is, is that </div>
<div> </div>
<div> 1. People are used to tagging with `riverbank` and habits die hard</div>
<div> 2. There might be objections in particular cases where the tags would not be considered equivalent</div>
<div> 3. There might be conflicting tags present, e.g. `waterway=riverbank; natural!=water` or `waterway=riverbank; water!=river` which would also conflict in automated substitution</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would like to mention that I think that these arguments apply to _any_ deprecation and, in the current case, in both directions. They are not arguments in favor of deprecating `water=river`, but rather arguments against resolving the situation as a whole by deprecating either tag.<br>
<br>
I have not received any arguments which would actually suggest deprecating `water=river` in favor of `waterway=riverbank`. Please mention it, if you have any such points!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Whether or not to deprecate either tag, is probably something people with more experience in what this means for "collateral damage" have to comment on. I don't have this experience, but I would like to say that I think, that compared to other deprecation scenarios, this seems to be fairly friendly one with little risk of actual problems.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your input and hopefully we can improve this, one way or another!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cedric</div>
<br>
<br/>
-------------------------------------------------<br/>
This free account was provided by VFEmail.net - report spam to abuse@vfemail.net<br/>
<br/>
<font color='red'><B>ONLY AT VFEmail!</B></font> - Use our <font color='blue'><B>Metadata Mitigator</font></b>™ to keep your email out of the NSA's hands! <br/>
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!<br/>
No Bandwidth Quotas! 15GB disk space! <br/>
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options! <br/>
<br>
</body>
</html>