[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Sun Mar 20 22:54:23 GMT 2011

I checked with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NHD#Mapping and
StreamRiver 46003 was mapped to waterway=stream, and the description is
intermittent streams. As far as I can tell, nothing else was mapped to

NAIP imagery seems to verify this. 

Seeing that the FCode was imported, I'm thinking I'll use that to identify
which are rivers and which are streams. Essentially, this will be changing
46003 to intermittent streams and 46006 to streams, with exceptions for
46006 where the name indicates it's a river.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: john at jfeldredge.com [mailto:john at jfeldredge.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:42 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
> Has anyone determined for sure that the streams you plan to tag as
> intermittent are so, in fact?  This would require either getting
> confirmation from the organization that made the original survey, or at
> least checking with folks with local knowledge that a large. enough
> sample of the streams were, in fact, all intermittent.
> -------Original Email-------
> Subject :[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
> From  :mailto:penorman at mac.com
> Date  :Sun Mar 20 16:29:54 America/Chicago 2011
> A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD
> imported waterways. An example of the problem is at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3&lon=-123.3&zoom=9&layers=M
> Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with
> waterway=stream being used for what appear to be intermittent streams.
> I propose doing the following changes. These changes would *only* be
> done to ways that have not been modified since import. I have experience
> with this type change from cleanup on Canadian NHN data.
> 1. Adding intermittent=yes to NHD streams.
> 2. Downgrading waterway=river to waterway=stream for non-rivers.
> 3. Joining rivers into a single way
> Steps 1 and 2 would be done in one set of imports while joining rivers
> would be done in a second pass.
> Spot checks in the area linked indicate this would cause no problems. If
> verification with imagery was necessary I'd use MapQuest's Open Aerial
> Map as it seems to be the highest quality in these remote areas.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than
> not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

More information about the Talk-us mailing list