[Tagging] Deprecation - waterway=riverbank vs water=river

[Warin]

On 11/2/21 1:40 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> (I suppose you mean by "redundant" that they have the same meaning)
>
> From the purely practical point of view:
> If they have the same meaning and one of them is used twice as much as 
> the other and, in addition, it needs only one tag and the other one 
> needs two, I would stick with waterway=riverbank .
> BTW waterway=riverbank is still today  JOSM preset
> The statement " `waterway=*` is predominantly used to indicate the the 
> location and topology of flowing waters," is in contradiction with the 
> actual use and the wiki page
> waterway is not only for flowing water, but also for 
> waterway=dam|weir|lock_gate|dock|boat_yard|water_point|fuel|milestone|sluice_gate


There are also intermittent waterways and seasonal waterways.


>
> And for intuitivity, waterway=riverbank to me seems better than 
> water=river


Particularly so when the 'river'/'river bank' only has water about every 
5 to 10 years and then only for a very short period of time, say a few 
days.

>
> If we deprecate one of the two keys, what do we win: additional work 
> for many mappers, because as soon as we edit data that contains a 
> deprecated key we get a warning, so many that I simply ignore them 
> regularly..
>
> A different thing would be an automated mass-edit, combined with a 
> massive information campaign to all mappers, that they have to switch 
> habits for a frequent tagging situation.


I'll be sticking with waterway=riverbank, thank you.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 13:56, <manday at openmail.cc> wrote:
>
>     Hello everyone,
>
>     this concerns the usage of `waterway=riverbank` and
>     `natural=water; water=river` which are currently considered
>     equivalent and thus redundant (taking the wiki and observed usage
>     as reference). I hope that we can find a consensus on how to
>     improve this (certanly minor, but present) nuisance for the
>     benefit of simplying the canon (both for mappers & data users).
>     Some of us had a short discussion of this matter on IRC, I try to
>     incorporate the perspectives that I could make out into the mail.
>     There appears to be no disagreement that, due to this being
>     redundant (opinions to the contrary have been postulated, but I
>     don't know of an actual case where they are not redundant), the
>     redundancy would optimally be resolved by removing one or the other.
>     Personally, I am of the opinion that `waterway=riverbank` would be
>     the candidate for removal, because it has certain shortcomings
>     which `water=river` does not:
>      1. `waterway=*` is predominantly used to indicate the the
>     location and topology of flowing waters, not the extent, but
>     `riverbank` does not fit that description
>      2. it is, by name a waterWAY, while the extents of a river are an
>     area
>      3. it refers to bodies of WATER, whereas a riverbank in the
>     actual (geographical) sense is not the river's water area, but
>     includes a larger margin
>     The main point that has been brought up against deprecating
>     `riverbank`, so I understood is, is that
>      1. People are used to tagging with `riverbank` and habits die hard
>      2. There might be objections in particular cases where the tags
>     would not be considered equivalent
>      3. There might be conflicting tags present, e.g.
>     `waterway=riverbank; natural!=water` or `waterway=riverbank;
>     water!=river` which would also conflict in automated substitution
>     I would like to mention that I think that these arguments apply to
>     _any_ deprecation and, in the current case, in both directions.
>     They are not arguments in favor of deprecating `water=river`, but
>     rather arguments against resolving the situation as a whole by
>     deprecating either tag.
>
>     I have not received any arguments which would actually suggest
>     deprecating `water=river` in favor of `waterway=riverbank`. Please
>     mention it, if you have any such points!
>     Whether or not to deprecate either tag, is probably something
>     people with more experience in what this means for "collateral
>     damage" have to comment on. I don't have this experience, but I
>     would like to say that I think, that compared to other deprecation
>     scenarios, this seems to be fairly friendly one with little risk
>     of actual problems.
>     Thanks for your input and hopefully we can improve this, one way
>     or another!
>     Cedric
>
>
>     -------------------------------------------------
>     This free account was provided by VFEmail.net - report spam to
>     abuse at vfemail.net <mailto:abuse at vfemail.net>
>
>     *ONLY AT VFEmail!* - Use our *Metadata Mitigator*™ to keep your
>     email out of the NSA's hands!
>     $24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!
>     No Bandwidth Quotas!   15GB disk space!
>     Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210211/44d468e0/attachment.htm>