[OSM-talk] Approved: waterway=stream

[David Earl]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org]On Behalf Of Tom Chance
> Sent: 11 June 2007 09:24
> To: Alex Mauer
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Approved: waterway=stream
>
>
>
> Hullo,
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:54:40 -0500, Alex Mauer
> <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> > Voting ended for waterway=stream two months ago.
> >
> > Results:
> > 3 - approve
> > 0 - oppose
> >
> > I have added it to the map features page and moved it to the approved
> > features page.
>
> You've got this wrong, though it's understandable given the long
> discussion. The votes at the end *didn't* approve
> waterway=stream, we approved Ben's much more comprehensive
> proposal for mapping waterways.
>
> It would be best if waterway=stream was removed from the map
> features page, and his proposal got a bit more discussion. It's
> quite a big change, but in my opinion a very sensible one.
>



I think this has missed the boat. waterway=stream is *already* widely used,
and rendered. Therefore it is defacto a feature whatever the proposers of
this complicated alternative may like.

I think it would be silly to remove it now. It might be that it is treated
as an abbreviation for a combination of the more complicated ones.

If this proposal really is to be adopted (and 3 votes is pathetic) then
exisiting streams need to be modified.

(I understand that there is a desire for the accurate representation of
things like river widths, but really making it so detailed is highly
offputting for putting things like this on the map. I think the same applies
to requiring area landuse=residential instead of just tagging roads as you
go).

David.