Dave. F wrote: >> But also in this proposal I point out that waterway=riverbank does not >> differ much from natural=water, and suggest to map it with natural=water + >> water=river.
>This means you have multiple keys for river (water & waterway). >It also means your using river to describe two different items (river & >riverbank) Yes, but the difference is less when you actually map and not dig into words. 1) Doesn't anyone think that areas tagged with waterway=riverbank are neither waterways nor riverbanks? 2) And that water bodies of rivers have more similarities with natural=water (lakes, for example), than with waterway=river or any other object tagged with waterway=*? They are even drawn on the majority of maps (including osm.org mapnik) exactly like natural=water. 3) So, it would be more logical to tag river body as natural=water. 4) And according to this proposal, to specify the water body type with water=*. 5) And the most suitable tag value for that would be water=river (not riverbank, that's for sure). I'm open to other suggestions. >This leads to pointless confusion. I agree, but it seems there is always confusion when tagging is changed (see public transport proposal, for example). IZ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
