[Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:10 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It feels more natural to map a side pool of a wide river which has a river
> polygon
> by expanding the polygon.  But such a pool cannot be named.  It feels
> unnatural to tack a pond onto the side of a river polygon.  But I suppose
> it will work.
>

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:37 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's normal for the areas of rivers to be split at rather arbitrary
> locations, since it is a maintenance nightmare if a whole river is mapped
> as one large polygon.
>
> Normally waterway=riverbank (and water=river) areas do not have a name tag
>
> But if a particular part of a river, like a plunge pool, has a name, then
> it would be appropriate to map that area as a waterway=riverbank (or
> water=river) polygon with a name=* tag
>

I don't think I've had the situation come up, but if it did, I'd probably
map the riverbank only once, and split the river at the fall and at the
outlet of the pool. Do the ordinary waterway=riverbank or water=river
mapping for the river as a whole, and create a multipolygon (probably
tagged natural=water water=pond) to represent the pool.

I really don't like concurrent ways, particularly when they either are
describing the same feature or else are the same topologically (e.g., the
boundary between coterminous features). They are indeed a maintenance
nightmare. If two polygons share part of their boundary, I'd much rather
create a single way to represent it, and then have two relations with that
way as a member.  Opinions on this topic differ - I'm not speaking for
anyone but myself.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201221/d5a4cfc7/attachment-0001.htm>