[Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 22:36:49 UTC 2018


To me, waterway=* should only get values to map linear water courses for
the routable hydrographic network.
Newer tagging with natural=water sounds ok, except for artificial water
features.
I'm not so keen of natural=water over a man made irrigation canal, unless
there is no artificial water, even in artificial man made structures

All the best

François

Le jeu. 6 sept. 2018 à 15:53, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 6. Sep 2018, at 15:37, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfeifer at computer.org> wrote:
> >
> > well it is certainly the _older_ scheme than natural=water +
> water=river, insofar the statement is not wrong. The wiki page for
> 'riverbank' says, it "remains in widespread use and is still preferred by
> some mappers." I.e. 279K vs. 19K for water=river.
>
>
> +1
> according to tag history the older scheme grows at least at the same speed
> as the newer alternative.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180907/3b956bab/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list