<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    +1<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/02/2021 15:00, Martin Machyna
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:465c0fa1-3fc0-0dc5-34c0-588d593ce069@gmail.com">
      <p>I don't see how this is a relevant argument for anything.
        water=river can accommodate intermittent or seasonal properties
        just fine. <br>
      </p>
      <p>This is not a grammar exercise. Tags are just placeholders and
        not some dictionary definitions.<br>
      </p>
      <p><br>
      </p>
      <p><br>
      </p>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11.2.21 5:46 , Warin wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite"
        cite="mid:db74c1a2-3591-5454-a064-94450e6a962e@gmail.com">
        <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">
          <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" moz-do-not-send="true"><manday@openmail.cc></a>
              wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote">
              <div>
                <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>
                <b>ONLY AT VFEmail!</b> - Use our <b>Metadata Mitigator</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>
              </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" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
        </blockquote>
        <p><br>
        </p>
        <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" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <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>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>