Yes, yes, of course. Quite right, Yves, and Martin.
>> waterway=river
>> name=Tanana River
>> waterway=section
>> section=bend
>> section:name=Harper Bend
>You can't use waterway=section + waterway=river on the same way, and you
>shouldn't map overlapping ways for obvious reasons.
I made that same argument myself earlier and then broke my own rule
immediately. LOL
Yves suggests this scenario:
waterway=river
name=Tanana River
waterway:section=bend
waterway:section_name=Harper Bend
Which I like, except for the way the last tag is written. I would prefer
waterway:section:name=Harper Bend
I don't like mixing the uses of "_" and ":"
The way these two delimiters have been used in OSM has always seemed
muddled to me.
Colin suggested we agree on the goals of this project and wrote:
* there can be contiguous linear sections of a river which can have names
* there can be small features with names, such as small bays which can
better be represented by a node
* they can be "straight" (for example "reaches") or "curved" (for example
"bends")
* they can (partially) overlap each other, and there may be gaps (there may
not be a clear, sharp transition from one section to the next)
* in the case of linear feature, they encompass the entire width of the
river and are not just a 2D line
* for "river", read (river OR stream OR drain OR...)
These indeed are the goals of this discussion as I see them. The last of
these is an attempt to make the tagging consistent for several varieties of
waterway which is why, IMO, we use the waterway key instead of river or
stream, etc.
So, what's next?
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:19 PM Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> river_feature would be fine as well as it would imply that it doesn't need
> to be a linear feature, a node would also be OK (for small named bays etc?)
>
> Lets have a go at agreeing the basic principles of what we are trying to
> achieve.
> * there can be contiguous linear sections of a river which can have names
> * there can be small features with names, such as small bays which can
> better be represented by a node
> * they can be "straight" (for example "reaches") or "curved" (for example
> "bends")
> * they can (partially) overlap each other, and there may be gaps (there
> may not be a clear, sharp transition from one section to the next)
> * in the case of linear feature, they encompass the entire width of the
> river and are not just a 2D line
> * for "river", read (river OR stream OR drain OR...)
>
> This is pointing towards:
> * a way along the centre line of the river (colinear with the main_stream
> lines?) OR a node for smaller / non-linear features
> * waterway=river_feature
> * river_feature={reach,bend,bay,...}
> * name=*
>
>
> I would like this to be applicable to lakes as well (why not?) but it's
> difficult to see how a linear feature would apply to a lake. Any comments?
>
> There was a suggestion that we should re-use existing flow lines and not
> superimpose new ways. This would not allow for the fact that two linear
> features may overlap - the end of a "bend" may overlap with the first bit
> of a "reach" for example. The extent of these features may be well defined,
> but they may not be so sharp. My thought is that this freedom to allow
> overlaps is important. Any comments?
>
> On 2018-09-29 00:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 06:32, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> The point of raising the "reach" business it to help abstracting the
>> proposed tagging model to make it more generic. If we consolidate all the
>> thoughts expressed so far, we can say that:
>> * there can be contiguous linear sections of a river which can have names
>> * they can be "straight" (for example "reaches") or "curved" (for example
>> "bends")
>> * they can (partially) overlap each other, and there may be gaps (there
>> may not be a clear, sharp transition from one section to the next)
>> * they encompass the entire width of the river and are not just a 2D line
>>
>
>
>> This is pointing towards:
>> * a way along the centre line of the river (colinear with the main_stream
>> lines?)
>> * waterway=river_section
>> * river_section={reach,bend,...}
>> * name=*
>>
>
> Liking your train of thought Colin.
>
> Just wondering, perhaps =river_feature?
>
> I'm not certain about "they encompass the entire width of the river" though?
> Would that then exclude things like *"The Deep Hole"* & *"17 Mile Rocks"*,
> which are both named spots that I can point out on a map?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
