On Saturday 08 September 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> The imagery I was working of had apparently been taken during the dry
> season as the actual river channel with water in it was ~30 - 50 m's
> wide. But the wet season river (or possibly flood?) channel was very
> obviously ~500 - 700 m's
On Saturday 08 September 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Question for you though in regard to these "non-rivers"?
>
> Are these channels permanent or do they move as tidal runoff changes?
Between mangroves these are fairly static but elsewhere they can change
quite rapidly.
> & they appear t
On 08/09/18 19:21, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Saturday 08 September 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
The imagery I was working of had apparently been taken during the dry
season as the actual river channel with water in it was ~30 - 50 m's
wide. But the wet season river (or possibly flood?) chan
On 08.09.2018 01:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 8. Sep 2018, at 01:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think that
your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest, least messy
or complicated way of doing it?
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving vehicle).
> Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch climb) do
> something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
This seems like a good idea to me -- al
Way 570038402, named "Rute", is certainly different in appearance than the
"tidal channels" / rivers through the mangroves in my area. "Rute" is a
V-shaped channel of deeper water between shoals or tidal mud flats, and the
coast is clearly a long way off. I can see how this shouldn't be labeled as
