On Thursday 29 May 2014, malenki wrote: > > > > One thing that bothers me about this is that with the new tagging > > scheme for rivers (natural=water + water=river) > > Did I miss something? Where was the "new tagging scheme" proposed?
Has been around for quite some time see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank but as you showed it is not used much. Still it means that it can no more be assumed that natural=water indicates standing water. Therefore by removing this tag without replacement you remove the information on that. The original source of the data is NHD which does make a fairly proper distinction in this regard AFAIK. Therefore it would be a significant loss to simply delete this information. > > > On the other hand the distinction lake - pond is somewhat pointless > > anyway so i would suggest you simply change it to water=lake. > > That doesn't work. Some of the objects look like puddles on Bing, > others are dry/intermittent. The lake/pond distinction does not say anything about permanency. In fact there is currently no established verifiable criterion to make this distinction at all. I do not know any use of the data that actually interprets water=lake differently from water=pond. But if you do not want to use water=lake because some of them are very small that is fine - water=standing or river=no would work as well. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
