[Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 21:09:15 UTC 2019
sent from a phone
> On 25. Apr 2019, at 18:45, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Rhine downstream from Basel and to Bingen has been re-bedded nearly completely (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Rhine) and, by the above arguments, should be re-tagged as canal, which seems absurd.
> So maybe the concepts ar not as well defined as I thought.
this is true for a lot of other rivers as well. I think the distinction is whether the bed is still somewhere near the old position, then it is not considered a canal, while a waterway that cuts through the natural topology and diverts water into areas where there wouldn’t normally be, or in directions it wouldn’t normally flow, then it is clearly a canal (intended on the scale of the waterway, not just locally).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging