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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Sep 8 10:42:28 UTC 2018

On 08/09/18 19:21, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Saturday 08 September 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> The imagery I was working of had apparently been taken during the dry
>> season as the actual river channel with water in it was ~30 - 50 m's
>> wide. But the wet season river (or possibly flood?) channel was very
>> obviously ~500 - 700 m's wide.
>> What should we be marking as the "riverbank" - where the water is
>> visible "now", or the defined limits of where it spreads out to in
>> the wet season?
> Note in many cases such situations are mapped based on the assumption of
> armchair mappers that the floodplain of a braided river is fully water
> covered at some time of the year - which is wrong in many cases.

Some rivers don't flow for many years.
When some do flow they can overflow the 'bank' for some kilometres width wise.
Most would map the sandy areas as the river bank ..
neglecting the larger areas where trees as misshapen and may still carry debris carried by the water flows.

More information about the Tagging mailing list