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

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 21:14:40 UTC 2018

Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 21:40, Richard <ricoz.osm at gmail.com> a écrit :

> > 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.

That escalated quickly !
Routable doesn't mean navigable at all. Hydrographic routable network is
about where the water goes.
Ditches, canals and river where the same property to carry water somewhere.
You're so focused on particular usage that anything else is non-sense. This
is really questionable.

We'd really better to separate concepts in different keys between water
ways and other features like dams, fuel places or piers which doesn't carry
water at all.

This was my 2 cts

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180907/0735fc42/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list