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

Richard ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 19:39:10 UTC 2018


On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 09:51:31AM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:38 PM Fran├žois Lacombe
> <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> 
> natural=* is a lost cause, and  part of the issue there is that there
> are a good many natural=* tags that don't have neutral equivalents.

+1

> If a mapper can't say, 'there's water here', 'there are trees here',
> 'there is grass here' without doing research on human intent and
> purpose for the landcover, navigability of the waterways, there's
> something wrong with the data model. 

+1

> The idea that  waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to
> me. 

that idea is nonsense.. there was never the assertion that waterway=ditch,stream
be navigable.

Time to check reality .. maybe natural=water + water=XXXX is good for many
things but obviously most mappers did not like it enough for XXXX=river.

This is not saying the idea was bad but there are also practical concerns 
when mixing the two schemes and most people just don't like the added
complexity of a mixed solution when everything can be handled with
waterway=riverbanks at least as well.

So the simplest would be to document in the wiki that the idea didn't catch 
up with rivers.

Regarding landcover.. don't have time for this discussion now;)

Richard




More information about the Tagging mailing list