[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 108, Issue 162

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 23:18:57 UTC 2018


One other thing about the section key I just learned from Taginfo. Although
undocumented it has had some use already to describe sections of a railway.
So maybe we need to make it easier to distinguish between those uses? Or
maybe not.




On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:53 AM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It appears I was too hasty about dismissing the reach argument. Yes, that
> makes sense Colin. And Joseph's suggestion to make it more general sounds
> good too. I think the name part needs to be set up to distinguish the name
> of the bend or reach from that of the river because both are valid for any
> section. The hierarchy below would fill the bill and more than satisfy my
> sense of orderliness. LOL
>
> waterway=river
> name=Tanana River
> waterway=section
> section=bend
> section:name=Harper Bend
>
> I like what we've come up with so far. Any more suggestions?
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:15 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do canals have named sections?
>>
>> Waterway=section would work for canals too, if there are such a thing as
>> canal reaches or sections or bends
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:32 AM Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-09-28 07:37, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>>>
>>> The discussion about the definition of "reach" is interesting but IMO
>>> it's slightly off topic.  Perhaps, because of those differences in its
>>> interpretation, we would be best served by not using the term at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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=*
>>>
>>> Is this a basis that we can work incrementally forwards from?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180929/2db1bb9f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list