On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:23:57 +1000
{withheld} <[email protected]> wrote:> 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. Stuck in my mind is "Madmen's Bend" at Hay, which refers to a part of the river, and it is not a /reach/, but also warrants its name recording as the sign nearby is recording the name. http://billiau.net/zoph/photo.php?album_id=144&_order=date&_off=1246 Have we got some other word for the smaller part of the waterway? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
