[Tagging] Marking waterway=brook as deprecated and problematic

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 30. Dez. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Stefan Tauner <
stefan.tauner at gmx.at>:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 14:59:59 +0000
> Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
>  > I have never used this tag however the wiki definition has widely
> > missed the common usage of the word brook by a country mile.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothley_Brook
> >
> > A brook as I understand it from growing up in areas where the term is
> > commonly used, it is never intermittent.
> >
> > A brook is between a stream and a river. Usually too wide to jump but
> > certainly too shallow or small for boats or to swim in. Deep enough to
> > fall in and get soaked, something I used to do regularly as a child.
>
> I think this is quite accurately captured by waterway=stream but we may
> want to refine the definition regarding "jumpability" a bit.



the given brook definition actually means that not a single waterway=stream
would cover it, they would all be rivers. Only if the stream definition was
"refined" aka completely changed they might cover it. I usually stop
reading at the point where someone proposes to completely redefine an
established and long standing definition for a major feature. It just isn't
sufficiently realistic to merit a second thought, similar to your hiking
club planning a hike to the moon ;-)
Anyway, I invite you to have a second thought: how could we organize the
review of 14 million waterway=stream objects plus 1.5 million rivers, that
would have to be reviewed after we give up the main criterion for
distinction and set a different one? What timeframe would be suitable? What
are the benefits?

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201230/8e61632e/attachment.htm>