<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/2/21 1:40 am, Volker Schmidt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7WfJdg0UW+_yWT4=SLDPG4zTxK0OXPn4OzLeahk=3Ezg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>(I suppose you mean by "redundant" that they have the same
meaning)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From the purely practical point of view:</div>
<div>If they have the same meaning and one of them is used twice
as much as the other and, in addition, it needs only one tag
and the other one needs two, I would stick with
waterway=riverbank .</div>
<div>BTW waterway=riverbank is still today JOSM preset</div>
<div>The statement " `waterway=*` is predominantly used to
indicate the the location and topology of flowing waters," is
in contradiction with the actual use and the wiki page<br>
</div>
<div>waterway is not only for flowing water, but also for
waterway=dam|weir|lock_gate|dock|boat_yard|water_point|fuel|milestone|sluice_gate</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There are also intermittent waterways and seasonal waterways. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7WfJdg0UW+_yWT4=SLDPG4zTxK0OXPn4OzLeahk=3Ezg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And for intuitivity, waterway=riverbank to me seems better
than water=river <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Particularly so when the 'river'/'river bank' only has water
about every 5 to 10 years and then only for a very short period of
time, say a few days. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7WfJdg0UW+_yWT4=SLDPG4zTxK0OXPn4OzLeahk=3Ezg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we deprecate one of the two keys, what do we win:
additional work for many mappers, because as soon as we edit
data that contains a deprecated key we get a warning, so many
that I simply ignore them regularly..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A different thing would be an automated mass-edit, combined
with a massive information campaign to all mappers, that they
have to switch habits for a frequent tagging situation.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'll be sticking with waterway=riverbank, thank you. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7WfJdg0UW+_yWT4=SLDPG4zTxK0OXPn4OzLeahk=3Ezg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 13:56,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:manday@openmail.cc"><manday@openmail.cc></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 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 <a href="mailto:abuse@vfemail.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">abuse@vfemail.net</a><br>
<br>
<font color="red"><b>ONLY AT VFEmail!</b></font> - Use our <font
color="blue"><b>Metadata Mitigator</b></font>™ 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>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>