On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:51, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a >> river. The >> disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name >> assigned. >> > > Sorry, my words were not clear enough here. By "conflate" I mean that the > pool would simply be part of the river polygon. See this example near > Boston: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91082432#map=16/42.2615/-71.2764 > I knew what you meant by "conflate." Others may not. > > Note that I explicitly included the phrase "if they are named or > significant in size" to cover the case where a stream pool has a name. My > intent is to craft the definition in such a way that it allows either > scheme without preference (i.e. part of the river polygon, or a separate > pond/lake polygon with a name). > It feels more natural to map a side pool of a wide river which has a river polygon by expanding the polygon. But such a pool cannot be named. It feels unnatural to tack a pond onto the side of a river polygon. But I suppose it will work. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
