[Tagging] Marking waterway=brook as deprecated and problematic

[Volker Schmidt]

Referring to this half-sentence in the Brook discussion page:
" This tag breaks with the basic convention of waterway tagging that
distinction between natural and artificial waterways is a primary
criterion."

The reason why I am asking, that in my part of the world (Western Europe),
the only not at-least partially artificial waterways are mountain water
courses, and that only partially.
All others are more or less artificial. If you want a particularly big
example: the River Rhine between Basel and Mainz is practically completely
man-made <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinbegradigung>.
Most of the rivers around where I live in the lower Po valley have their
course at least defined by man_made embankments.
Examples: River <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2220829> Brenta
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2220829>, River Bacchiglione
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2220827>. (The Bacchilgione appears
split into two bits because the missing bits go by different names)
Both consist of stretches that are meandering of sorts, always protected by
high embankments and linear stretches that are clearly man-made, always
accompanied by embankments. The same goes for many other rivers.
Even in the mountains, many waterways have parts that are natural, and
parts that are man made (straight) (Example
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49513008>)
What is the correct tagging?
Do I tag segments according to their shape as "river" or "canal" along the
same waterway?
Do embankments, closely following a river on both sides, qualify this
waterway as a canal?
Do I go by name?

So I have major doubts on this "basic" difference.
Even the criterion of free-flowing downhill does not help, as all water
flows downhill, unless pumped uphill, be that a river (very big pumps) or a
ditch.(small pumps)

Yours truly confused

Volker



On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 16:55, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201230/a281d0c5/attachment.htm>