On 2018-09-28 07:37, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> The discussion about the definition of "reach" is interesting but IMO it's
> slightly off topic. Perhaps, because of those differences in its
> interpretation, we would be best served by not using the term at all.
The point of raising the "reach" business it to help abstracting the
proposed tagging model to make it more generic. If we consolidate all
the thoughts expressed so far, we can say that:
* there can be contiguous linear sections of a river which can have
names
* they can be "straight" (for example "reaches") or "curved" (for
example "bends")
* they can (partially) overlap each other, and there may be gaps (there
may not be a clear, sharp transition from one section to the next)
* they encompass the entire width of the river and are not just a 2D
line
This is pointing towards:
* a way along the centre line of the river (colinear with the
main_stream lines?)
* waterway=river_section
* river_section={reach,bend,...}
* name=*
Is this a basis that we can work incrementally forwards from?_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
