[Tagging] Rivers classification

Richard ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Mon Aug 7 11:16:31 UTC 2017

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:33:55PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:19, Richard pisze:
> >The width is fine for many small rivers where mapping riverbanks would be
> >a nonsense and should be respected by the renderer.
> >But what you ask for seems like tagging for the renderer. Most of the
> >information is already there, either river width or the geometry determined
> >by riverbanks.
> Using classification is not tagging for the renderer, because it's not
> cheating that it's something different - it's just simplifying and sorting.
> It's a useful generalization, just like having different types of roads as a
> general property. Highways of course have width too and you can also draw
> the geometry with area:highway=*, but that's a different thing. On the macro
> scale you don't want all the details, only general data.

the difference though is that in many countries every road has a roadsign
identifying it as some kind of primary - secondary road type, also having 
legal implications someplaces.
That doesn't seem common for rivers and I am wondering if this information
will be ever useful to anyone.. probably not even your renderer as it would
take years before a notable part of rivers are tagged.

Some rivers have waterway relations which could be used to make some


More information about the Tagging mailing list