[Tagging] Deprecation - waterway=riverbank vs water=river
Martin Machyna
machyna at gmail.com
Fri Feb 12 15:00:13 UTC 2021
I don't see how this is a relevant argument for anything. water=river
can accommodate intermittent or seasonal properties just fine.
This is not a grammar exercise. Tags are just placeholders and not some
dictionary definitions.
On 11.2.21 5:46 , Warin wrote:
> 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
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> 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/20210212/8c157d38/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list