I'd like to reiterate that (much like riverbanks) the shoreline of a lake can change far faster than the river channel. While the area maps the "usual" extent (ignoring droughts and floods), the line is a very useful abstraction.
Not connecting rivers into a network invalidates the idea of a network in the first place and will lead to loss of data usefulness. This might lead to wide rivers no longer getting a centerline (bacause what's the point if everyone must work with the areas?) and will set a precedent that might get used by (for example) highway:area proponents to do the same to the road network. (No offence to the proponents of highway:area intended.) I'm almost curious as to what mayhem would replacing roads with areas cause. Should we not go the opposite direction and make sure that all rivers are either tributaries, or flow into an ocean or a lake that would get tagged with "no outflow"? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that someone already does that. On 23 February 2018 at 15:50, François Lacombe <[email protected]> wrote: > 2018-02-23 15:36 GMT+01:00 Rory McCann <[email protected]>: > >> If OSM takes a "all rivers must be connected through lakes", then data >> consumers have a simple job. If OSM says "some will and some won't", then >> data consumers have to process the data to add intra-lake connections. If >> they have to do it some of the time, why bother connecting *any* rivers? >> > > IMHO rivers should always connect through lakes. I'm always mapping like > this, no exception. > > >> I think I'll change to not connecting rivers, unless it's very obvious, >> and leaving data consumers to connect rivers themselves. >> > This may be a very hard task, especially if rivers don't share nodes witk > lakes waterbody. > > François > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
