Shaun McDonald wrote: >> Presumably that's only called a canal for historical reasons then? >> > > Yes. Is there anything wron with that?
Nope. I was just that I was wondering if it had some reason beyond its physical characteristics for being tagged as a canal. On the other hand, it might be better to just not tag it as a canal (just giving it the relevant name of "Croyden canal" instead) so that someone expecting a navigable waterway isn't disappointed. -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
