[OSM-newbies] Help -- How to use waterway=riverbank

[Aspen Swartz]

That page covers it well.  I find the method of using adjacent closed
ways much easier than making a relation between all the sections of
riverbank.  It's hard to make sure every section of bank is tagged
correctly in the relation for a long river.  Using closed ways means
you can accurately map as much river as you have data or time for and
not worry about the rest.

If you take care to join the centerline of  tributaries to the
centerline of the river, then openstreetmap can accurately count how
many rivers intersect with this one.  I also like to make the river
centerline (tagged waterway:river) intersect with the banks where I've
ended a section of the closed riverbank way.   I can't come up with a
logical justification for this, though.  It just feels to me like the
bank and the river should be hooked to each other in the map, not just
by their names.

-Aspen (eulochon)

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> Hi Charlotte
>
> This page may help:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
>
> As it says you should still include a way tagged as waterway=river to
> indicate the flow direction. This can be changed in Potlatch if necessary by
> selecting the way & clicking the arrow icon in the bottom left of the
> screen.
> On this way I also include a width=* to suggest the width of the river, but
> as this is rendered, if this isn't accurate & not dead centre of the
> riverbanks it may overlap with them.
>
> As you suggest, it's best to divide it up into smaller sections. I try to
> place them next to river crossing, but as yours is very wide that's probably
> doesn't occur very often.
>
> Often it helps to send a permalink (bottom right of the webpage map) of the
> area your working in so the others can take a look.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> On 06/09/2010 19:00, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>         I've been mapping the Little Colorado River, which, despite its
> name, is rather large, bank to bank. When it's not encased in a canyon--such
> as when it gets close to joining the big Colorado--it's a typical Western
> U.S. river: a quarter-mile wide and a foot deep. So, in the places where it
> is wide, I've been mapping it as two riverbanks. However, it sometimes
> renders as a large area of water,  covering places that are not under water.
>         I know we are not supposed to map for rendering, but this result
> makes me think that I am doing something wrong.
>         So, what is the correct way to handle waterway=riverbank?  Do we
> join the two banks from time to time (as I have done to try to correct the
> problem)?
>         The area I have mapped is in northern Arizona, around the towns of
> Cameron and Winslow.
>         Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Charlotte Wolter
>
> Charlotte Wolter
> 927 18th Street Suite A
> Santa Monica, California
> 90403
> +1-310-597-4040
> techlady at techlady.com
>
> The Four Internet Freedoms
> Freedom to visit any site on the Internet
> Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal
> Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network
> Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would
> affect the first three freedoms.
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
>