Hey Ruben, >> I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a >> canal. It's a waterway. imho, there is nothing to migrate to. >> Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not >> the area) is the logical waterway. > > Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain.
I disagree here. Riverbank is easy to maintain for me atleast, they should not be included in any relationship either, they should not be named and they do make sense on rivers where the waterlevel (and/or tides) influence the shape. [1] The logical riverway still belongs in the the 'waterway tagging scheme' if we can call it like that. natural=water isn't meant for rivers. I don't see where this idea is coming from at the moment. It's used on lakes, still water etc but on a river it's not suited. [2] The wiki doesn't mention that usage either. So the logical river would be waterway=river , and that is the part you would put in a waterway relation, the riverbank not. Keep things simple I would suggest. Hence the suggestion to delete the relation, probably have to review the tags first so we don't throw away good information. Now, I'm about to put the kids to bed so I really just scanned the wiki but I've done quite some research on waterway logic, hence why I'm quite convinced. But always open to suggestions. Glenn [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
