[Tagging] Marking waterway=brook as deprecated and problematic

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 6:48 PM Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
wrote:

> I'd like to make the argument that defining streams, whether they are
> called rivers, streams, creeks, brooks or any other such term just creates
> unnecessary conflicts. For example the wiki definition of stream is
> "naturally-forming waterway that is too narrow to be classed as
> waterway=river (the commonly accepted rule for OpenStreetMap is that a
> stream can be jumped across by an active, able-bodied person)" The mile
> which was derived from the Roman mile was the distance of 1,000 steps
> without mentioning of able-bodied person. It took centuries before the mile
> was defined as it is today. How long do we wait until we define the
> distance that an able-bodied person can jump?
>
> Take the Skagit River [1], which flows through my town. Undisputable
> river. Yet the headwaters [2] in British Columbia, CA can't even be seen on
> aerial imagery. Other than rivers that start out large, like from a large
> body of water, likely start out as a stream that even I could just step
> over. We could classify the headwaters as a stream but where does it change
> into a river? Is it ever a brook?
>
> The solution is to just use natual=stream. If the locals call it a river
> or not it's still in OSM. If data exists with flow rate it could be added
> to OSM. )I'd make the same argument for lake vs pond. Lets just tag them
> natural=water. )
>
>
The mile was 1000 paces - right heel to right heel.  The Roman legions'
drillmasters used a remarkably standardized pace. In general, soldiers
marching in ranks learn to lengthen or shorten stride to conform with what
their unit does.

I make it almost as simple as you do.  I use 'river' if I think that a
`waterway=riverbank` might at some point surround it - or surely, if I'm
mapping the bank myself.  (I personally would prefer `natural=water
water=river` but when I've mapped that around here, people have jumped in
and changed it.

Even though most of us appear to think that the track-and-field definition
of a stream is bogus (while taking it as gospel because someone editing the
Wiki said it was policy - while illustrating 'stream'' with a leap that
most of us wouldn't attempt!), there seems to be but little controversy
that by the time you're mapping it as an area feature, it's a river.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201231/77ed7aaa/attachment.htm>