[Tagging] Marking waterway=brook as deprecated and problematic

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at gmx.at
Fri Jan 1 05:51:58 UTC 2021

On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:56:10 -0800
Michael Patrick <geodesy99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I would never tag a waterway that is only <20cm deep as river - no
> > matter how wide it is. This does not make any sense to me whatsoever
> > and I am convinced that the majority of mappers would not either.
> >  
> "From its source in central Wyoming to its union with the YellowstoneRiver,
> the *Powder River* is 250 *miles* long, "A *mile wide and an inch deep*;
> too thick to drink and too thin to plow." Used to live there, it's
> only slightly hyperbole.

Where do these figures come from (and I don't mean the URL to the
article that is hosted on a GDPR-blocking site)? Maybe they mean the
historic riverbed, the valley or something else because sat images
definitely don't show anything remotely comparable?

> There are estuarine
> situations where deltas occur that are dominated by cobbles and gravels
> because of very low sediment loads.

Indeed and if I would have to map such a thing I would definitely
despair of the unavailability of better suited tags. Nothing useful
whatsoever is returned when you search the wiki for river delta. Good
thing that waterway=river is so undefined that it fits even these

Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

More information about the Tagging mailing list