On 10/04/11 12:23, 4x4falcon wrote: > On 09/04/11 16:28, John Smith wrote: >> On 9 April 2011 18:22, Andrew Harvey<[email protected]> wrote: >>> I would like to map some named reaches ("straight portion of a stream >>> or river, as from one turn to another;") part of a major river. >> >> To do this I would shift the river specific information to a relation, >> which is useful in any case since you can then lump all parts of the >> river into the same relation and then the individual segments can be >> tagged differently. >> > > Agree and include the river banks as part of the relation. > > Leave all the admin boundary out of it and remove any waterway tags from > the admin boundary. > > You should not need the river way down the middle if the river banks > have been mapped. >
Bearing in mind "reach" is also the nautical term for a tack, is it worth considering Andrew's source map might be documenting the lines of sailing between navigation markers (or indeed landmarks) which are no longer even well-known? [Disclaimer: I-am-not-a-sailor.] They may not even document current-day navigation channels, if that part of the river required dredging to keep such open in the past. In other words I am wondering whether it might be best to add the new names completely independently of both the waterway and the administrative boundary. Maybe create a tag like "waterway:navigation", perhaps for the new feature, perhaps? Justification for independence: these things are straight segments which rationalise a natural (i.e. curved) waterway for boating purposes... therefore are not the waterway itself. Similar argument for them not being the administrative layer (although they might be - can this be checked in any way?) My 2c. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
