sent from a phone
> On 7. Aug 2017, at 10:51, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > > I agree that some sort of river classification might be helpful but you > cannot expect a mapper standing before a river to first analyse a large > dataset before they can find the right classification tag - that would > totally run counter of "on the ground verification". I don't buy this argument because the situation for roads is the same and we do expect from mappers to analyze the network. There's also very few chance to do on the ground verification for waterway names (if otg means signs), but it doesn't imply you shouldn't add waterway names. Also, every child knows the big rivers in his home country (i.e. could tell the more from the less important ones, at least roughly), but in OSM we use the same tags for the Nile, the Amazonas, the Mississippi and every stream that is too big to jump over. We don't have to start with tens of different classes, but we should introduce at least a basic hierarchy to make our waterway data easier to use, e.g. significant on a global scale, only local scale, etc. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
