Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

I have a topic started at Belgium forum about tagging waterways, and found a link about 'Flanders classification-system' -> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=659424#p659424 Also, me thinks ; 'keep it simple' ... meaning ; all things, and also waterways can have a wikidata-code

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:47:59PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:24, Bryan Housel pisze: > >“official_length" is actually a good example of something that really does > >not need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if the river > >has a wikidata tag. See https:

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:24, Bryan Housel pisze: “official_length" is actually a good example of something that really does not need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if the river has a wikidata tag. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3392 for others. Of course I wouldn't us

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

“official_length" is actually a good example of something that really does not need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if the river has a wikidata tag. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3392 for others. Bryan > On Aug 8, 2017, at 10

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:01, Richard pisze: I know that you want save some computing power but nothing should be easier to compute than the length so encouraging mappers to add their own estimates doesn't seem like the best idea. The 915 uses possibly have a special purpose? However if there is

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:20:31PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze: > >I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to waterways > >(almost 72% uses): > > > >https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations > > > >Taginfo does not sho

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze: I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to waterways (almost 72% uses): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations Taginfo does not show such combination with rivers (it probably omits anything <1000 uses), but

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 21:46, Daniel Koć pisze: I don't know which classification would be good for my purposes (low zoom rendering), but currently we have not a single one defined nor used in practice, so I want to start with something. It doesn't need to be perfect, maybe simple length=* tag wo

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 10:44, Janko Mihelić pisze: pon, 7. kol 2017. u 21:48 Daniel Koć > napisao je: We could also try to craft internal classification similar to mix used with roads, for example: "big river - "medium river - "small river - I agree with th

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

pon, 7. kol 2017. u 21:48 Daniel Koć napisao je: > We could also try to craft internal classification similar to mix used > with roads, for example: > > "big river - "medium river - "small river - > > I agree with this, but we should also correlate these tags with some objective attributes like C

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 03:27:45PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 07.08.2017 o 13:16, Richard pisze: > > >Some rivers have waterway relations which could be used to make some > >classification? > > What do you mean? simply having a waterway relation means the river is a larger one worth to l

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

* Mark Wagner [170807 20:45]: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:37:52 +0200 > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> On 7. Aug 2017, at 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: >>> I agree that some sort of river classification might be helpful but >>> you cannot expect a mapper standing before a river to first analyse >>> a

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 20:45, Mark Wagner pisze: At least in developed countries, you can get an idea of a road's classification in the network just by looking at how it's constructed. I can stand beside Sprague Avenue, see that it's a one-way road with five lanes, and judge that it's probably a pr

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:37:52 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > > On 7. Aug 2017, at 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > > I agree that some sort of river classification might be helpful but > > you cannot expect a mapper standing before a river to first analyse > > a large

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2017, at 10:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I agree that some sort of river classification might be helpful but you > cannot expect a mapper standing before a river to first analyse a large > dataset before they can find the right classification tag - that would > to

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2017, at 23:42, Colin Smale wrote: > > We have a hierarchy of "importance" for roads, why not for waterways as well? > It's like we have nothing between motorway (river) and unclassified (stream). it's more like having service for streams and not differentiatin

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2017, at 23:19, Richard wrote: > > But what you ask for seems like tagging for the renderer. yes, but not in the way this sentence is usually used: he asks for helping the renderer by giving more (correct) information explicitly, rather than distorting the da

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 13:16, Richard pisze: the difference though is that in many countries every road has a roadsign identifying it as some kind of primary - secondary road type, also having legal implications someplaces. That doesn't seem common for rivers and I am wondering if this information

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 10:51, Frederik Ramm pisze: You are welcome to write a renderer that computes these orders from the existing data but please don't expect or entice mappers to compute this and add the tags (or worse, entice people to write scripts that compute these orders and add the tags to

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:33:55PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:19, Richard pisze: > > >The width is fine for many small rivers where mapping riverbanks would be > >a nonsense and should be respected by the renderer. > >But what you ask for seems like tagging for the renderer.

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

Sadly, neither of these stream orders are correlated with the discharge of the river, which could then send a wrong impression on the rendered map if they would indicate the river width. Cheers On 6 August 2017 17:30:20 CEST, "Daniel Koć" wrote: >W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze: >> as

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

Hi, On 08/06/2017 08:06 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > For general rendering on low zoom I would probably use combination of > classic and Strahler/Shreve. > order:classic=1 means only that this river goes to the sea, which is > more important than the river with higher number, but > order:strahler/order

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 00:15, Lukas Sommer pisze: Both, Wisła (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/34392) and Czerwona (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269561538) have the classic stream order “1” just before they enter in the ocean. Likely, the former you would like to render on low zoom levels,

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:42, Colin Smale pisze: The problem I see with some of these stream models is that we are starting from the big rivers with no mapping of tributaries in many cases. As detail gets added, it looks like the ratings of all the downstream segments will need to be recomputed.

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

We have a hierarchy of "importance" for roads, why not for waterways as well? It's like we have nothing between motorway (river) and unclassified (stream). The problem I see with some of these stream models is that we are starting from the big rivers with no mapping of tributaries in many cases.

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:19, Richard pisze: The width is fine for many small rivers where mapping riverbanks would be a nonsense and should be respected by the renderer. But what you ask for seems like tagging for the renderer. Most of the information is already there, either river width or the ge

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 05:30:20PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze: > >as of rendering, respecting river width and doing something reasonable > >with intermittent flows would be a great progress. > > What's the problem with intermittent flows? I'm not familiar w

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 06.08.2017 o 19:07, Lukas Sommer pisze: [You have replied to me personally, but I guess it should go to the list] I would encourage to use only _one_ classification system. Otherwise, the tagging will be _very_ complex and using it for rendering nearly to impossible, because it will be i

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze: as of rendering, respecting river width and doing something reasonable with intermittent flows would be a great progress. What's the problem with intermittent flows? I'm not familiar with water tagging. River width is a local property - it can vary l

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

(Wrong title sorry, here it is again) There is the CEMT tag, but I guess it's only useful for Europe: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:CEMT Janko ned, 6. kol 2017. u 13:34 Richard napisao je: > On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:26:23AM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > > I was thinking about bet

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:26:23AM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > I was thinking about better rendering rivers on medium and low zoom levels > of osm-carto and I've found that we lack any classification of them - > anything bigger than stream is just a river. as of rendering, respecting river width an