On 2020-02-27 10:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 27 Feb 2020, 09:55 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
>> If it was semantically important, we should be scanning for and flagging up
>> waterways with out-of-order ways.The fact that we are not, shows that the
>> ordering of the ways is not
27 Feb 2020, 09:55 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
> If it was semantically important, we should be scanning for and flagging up
> waterways with out-of-order ways.> The fact that we are not, shows that the
> ordering of the ways is not essential for a correct geometrical
>
On 2020-02-27 01:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> When you make or sort a relation of type=waterway, do you check if the
> source or mouth of the river is first on the list of ways?
>
> Another user just suggested that the spring/source of the waterway
> should start the list, then the mouth of the
JOSM doesn't change seem to change the order when it sorts, if the
relation is already listed "backwards" but in an ordered string. It
also won't sort a waterway relation which includes sidestream members,
or gaps.
But if you sort an unsorted waterway and each of the ways can be put
into one
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, 13:48 Joseph Eisenberg,
wrote:
> When you make or sort a relation of type=waterway, do you check if the
> source or mouth of the river is first on the list of ways?
>
As the ways point in the direction of flow I would have said that source to
sink was the natural sorting
When you make or sort a relation of type=waterway, do you check if the
source or mouth of the river is first on the list of ways?
Another user just suggested that the spring/source of the waterway
should start the list, then the mouth of the river at the ocean (or
where it empties into a larger
