Ciao Sergio, On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 23:46, Sergio Manzi <s...@smz.it> wrote: > > My only marginal objection is for canal: why don't you ditch (pun > intended...) the "used to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power > generation, irrigation or land drainage purposes" clause? > > Are there any other "Large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) > waterways" that should not be considered canals? > > My concern is that somewhere in the world there could be a canal not built > for any of those purposes and somebody could object to call it "a canal".
I would leave the canal uses (transportation, hydro-power generation, irrigation or land drainage) for clarification – otherwise waterway=canal were again mainly differentiated form waterway=ditch/drain by size, which we wanted to avoid because it is arbitrary. Possible other canal uses can still be added later. > Also isn't "land drainage" potentially in contradiction with "useful water"? Yes, you're right, *useful* should be removed. Regards Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
