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

[Richard]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:14:40PM +0200, François Lacombe wrote:
> 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.

you are right.

> 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.

In principle yes, but that is a rather distant target.

Richard