On 2018-02-23 11:35, Rory McCann wrote:
On 23/02/18 06:53, Maarten Deen wrote:
I see nothing wrong with those examples, I would do it the same, especially if the rivers can be sailed on by boat. Then you absolutely need the rivers to be connected to a central river (or fairway) in the lake.

But then how far do you go? Should every stream be connected to the
central river? e.g. what about here (

Mappers discretion. I'm not advocating a "must" in this case. I'm saying it's not a bad thing if it is done and in some circumstances it is preferrable. See it as roads connecting to a square. As long as routing over areas is not commonplace it is acceptable and even preferrable to lay roads over the square.

If some rivers/streams shouldn't be connected, then some data consumers
will have to do an automatic connection anyway. When measuring water run
off and pollution, you probably want to know that "stuff going into
stream X will eventually get to point Y downstream" (right?).

Yes. OSM gets used (maybe misused) for all kinds of purposes, but a hydrological analysis would be impossible if streams that are physically connected are not so in OSM.

Connecting all means that large lakes will be full of a "skeleton" of
joining rivers/streams, and a small 1km stream could get a lot longer.

Good point, but can be solved by using relations for the streams and not including the part of the stream that runs through the lake. In any case, I would think it strange to still use the the name of the stream on the part that runs through the lake.


talk mailing list

Reply via email to