[Tagging] Rivers classification

Mark Wagner mark+osm at carnildo.com
Mon Aug 7 18:45:36 UTC 2017

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:37:52 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

> sent from a phone
> > On 7. Aug 2017, at 10:51, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I agree that some sort of river classification might be helpful but
> > you cannot expect a mapper standing before a river to first analyse
> > a large dataset before they can find the right classification tag -
> > that would totally run counter of "on the ground verification".  
> I don't buy this argument because the situation for roads is the same
> and we do expect from mappers to analyze the network.

At least in developed countries, you can get an idea of a road's
classification in the network just by looking at how it's constructed.
I can stand beside Sprague Avenue, see that it's a one-way road with
five lanes, and judge that it's probably a primary road.  I can turn to
my right, see that Sunderland Court doesn't even have a stripe down the
middle, and know that it's about as minor as a road can get.

You can do the same in rural areas: US-195 near Steptoe has two wide
lanes, center and edge markings, and broad shoulders, so it's probably
a primary road.  In the same area, Hume Road has narrow lanes and no
shoulders, but at least it's paved and striped, so it's probably

You can't do the same with rivers.  The Clark Fork River and
the Colorado River have similar average flows, but the Colorado would
have a higher classification by any of the proposed measures.


More information about the Tagging mailing list