On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:14:53PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > 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.
ponds and such should be mapped. Infering an underground waterflow from them may or may not be a stretch depending on the information that you have available. Often the underground waterflow is locally well known or can be inferred from many other informations. > 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: that would be the best thing to do.. seems like otherwise every single mapper would use wadi in a different way. > waterway=* > intermittent=yes/no (default assumption of "no") > intermittent:frequency=winter/spring/summer/fall/seasonal/ephemeral/unknown > (default assumption of "unknown") +intermittent:frequency=random_rare/random_frequent ? We are still missing a definition of natural=valley afaics. There are some old proposals but I have been told on some other mailing list that valeys are nowadays mapped as a line natural=valley along the valley bottom. So maybe we should also document this or make a proposal to that effect. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
