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

[manday at openmail.cc]

Instead of "wasting communication bandwidth for everyone" with a lot  
of unsolicited advice about attitudes and whatnot, you could have  
elaborated those arguments which you said were not presented, or at  
least point to a reference.

It may surprise you, but I did actually not start this thread for my  
personal benefit (crazy, I know!), but rather because it was suggested  
that I present my opinion (you call this "made up my mind of what the  
discussion should be") here for discussion.

Have a good day.

And next time you want to speak in this tone, please write off-list,  
as it would be proper etiquette.

Quoting Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de>:

> On Thursday 11 February 2021, manday at openmail.cc wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I would like to point out that no argument other than the ~100k
>> difference for removing `water=river` in favor of `riverbank` has
>> been presented. [...]
>
> I have no interest in engaging in this discussion which is a reiteration
> of a discussion we have already had countless times on this list and
> elsewhere.  But since you seem to be new here (and probably new to OSM
> in general) a little piece of advice:
>
> Do not conclude from the fact that people do not engage in a discussion
> with you that there are no arguments against your views of things.
> That people do not present you arguments only means that they don't
> think presenting them would have any benefit.  As Frederik recently
> mentioned repeating the same points over and over again just wastes
> communication bandwidth for everyone.  Not to mention this English
> language mailing list is only a small and highly selective cutout from
> the global OSM community.
>
> Why it is a good idea to make the distinction between standing inland
> waterbodies and flowing inland water as a distinction in primary
> tagging has been explained many times over the years.  You either
>
> * know this and accept this being a valid reason for a distinction in
> primary tagging between lakes and riverbank polygons.
> * know this and reject the relevancy of this distinction.  Then
> repeating that point again will not make a difference.
> * don't know this (because you are new to OSM or to the topic of
> waterbody mapping and tagging).  Then you should not start off a
> discussion clearly stating you have already made up your mind what the
> results of the discussion should be.  Instead the prudent thing to do
> is asking - with an open mind - why people prefer tagging riverbank
> polygons with waterway=riverbank or natural=water respectively.  Then
> you would probably have received an explanation for both sides.  And
> even if you did not it would still be prudent (and also advisable under
> the principle of "assume good faith") to assume that those who prefer
> waterway=riverbank (as evidenced by its ongoing use) have a good reason
> for that.



-------------------------------------------------
This free account was provided by VFEmail.net - report spam to 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!  
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!