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.
On 6 August 2017 17:30:20 CEST, "Daniel Koć" <dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl> wrote:
>W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze:
>> as of rendering, respecting river width and doing something
>> with intermittent flows would be a great progress.
>What's the problem with intermittent flows? I'm not familiar with water
>River width is a local property - it can vary lot in different places.
>need simple, synthetic measure for lower zoom levels (like
>country/continent) without making any computations.
>Stream order classification (or rather "waterway order" in our case) is
>very good for this, but it has few different versions, mainly
>- classic stream order (also called Hack's stream order or Gravelius'
>- Strahler stream order (also Strahler number or Horton–Strahler
>- Shreve stream order (with Hodgkinson et al.)
>but also topological stream order system and probably some other too.
>We should allow any of them to be used, so a general namespace should
>crafted. It could look like:
>- order:classic (or order:hack or order:gravelius),
>3. waterway_order:x (or stream_order:x or waterbody_order:x)
>4. waterway:class:x (or waterway_class:x)
>and possibly others. What do you think about it?
>> Iirc the stream order issue has been brought up on some talk page
>Thanks, but it's just a brief mention:
>"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]
>Tagging mailing list
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Tagging mailing list