[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 108, Issue 162

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 22:11:47 UTC 2018


On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 06:32, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> The point of raising the "reach" business it to help abstracting the
> proposed tagging model to make it more generic. If we consolidate all the
> thoughts expressed so far, we can say that:
> * there can be contiguous linear sections of a river which can have names
> * they can be "straight" (for example "reaches") or "curved" (for example
> "bends")
> * they can (partially) overlap each other, and there may be gaps (there
> may not be a clear, sharp transition from one section to the next)
> * they encompass the entire width of the river and are not just a 2D line
>


> This is pointing towards:
> * a way along the centre line of the river (colinear with the main_stream
> lines?)
> * waterway=river_section
> * river_section={reach,bend,...}
> * name=*
>

Liking your train of thought Colin.

Just wondering, perhaps =river_feature?

I'm not certain about "they encompass the entire width of the river" though?
Would that then exclude things like *"The Deep Hole"* & *"17 Mile Rocks"*,
which are both named spots that I can point out on a map?

Thanks

Graeme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180929/fb733fa4/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list