On Jan 17, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 07:50:36AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: > >> >> Based on where I sometimes see old wind driven pumps, I'd guess that many >> longer (10s of miles long) washes have an underground flow. > > I think so. > >> On the other hand, in the field or using Bing imagery neither I nor any >> other typical citizen mapper can really determine if there is unseen >> underground water flow. So so how can that be a criteria for mapping the >> feature? > > usually you will assume it if there are ponds of open water or swamps > in several places along a valley.
A pond/swamp/oasis/cienega in an arid or even semi-arid area is a significant feature that deserve mapping in its own right. Using that to infer information about a nearby or connected item seems a stretch to me. The more I think about this issue the more I am coming to the feeling that waterway=wadi ought to be deprecated and we should come up with a way of further defining "intermittent" to distinguish between seasonal and ephemeral flow patterns. Based on other responses on this thread maybe: waterway=* intermittent=yes/no (default assumption of "no") intermittent:frequency=winter/spring/summer/fall/seasonal/ephemeral/unknown (default assumption of "unknown") Tod _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
