Proposal talk:Rivers
Discuss Relations/Proposed/Rivers here:
role-core
In my opinion there should also be something like role=core, a way drawn in the middle of the river to allow routing and a propper font placement. -- Fröstel 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea, it will also allow the direction of the river to be marked, ie the core way should be drawn from source to sea. Dmgroom 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would also be good as fallback for more primitive (real-time) renderers. They could ignore waterway=riverbank and all the relations stuff and just draw the core. Therefor the core must of course be tagged as waterway=river/canal and name=xyz. Having said that, what about changing waterway=riverbank into waterway=bank? It's more generic and would also work for canals instead of waterway=canalbank. -- Fröstel 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Renderers write the river name along the central way too I guess. I agree. I think it's good to include a way down the middle, and it should therefore be lumped into the same relation. This will need to be mentioned in this relations proposal and diagram edited
- Changing waterway=riverbank to waterway=bank sounds sensible too, but that's a dicussion to go on Talk:Proposed features/Large rivers.
- -- Harry Wood 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would also be good as fallback for more primitive (real-time) renderers. They could ignore waterway=riverbank and all the relations stuff and just draw the core. Therefor the core must of course be tagged as waterway=river/canal and name=xyz. Having said that, what about changing waterway=riverbank into waterway=bank? It's more generic and would also work for canals instead of waterway=canalbank. -- Fröstel 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do rivers have “cores?” How about role=channel, role=centreline, or something more self-explanatory. —Michael Z. 2011-05-05 20:44 z
Canals
IMHO everything that's discussed and decided here for rivers should apply to canals as well. In terms of mapping and modelling they are just the same. -- Fröstel 15:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Canals are mostly narrow in the UK, and so the riverbank problem doesn't crop up so much, but then rivers are mostly narrow too. In both cases, we sometimes need to define banks/areas/islands, the rest of the time we define a single way. They should be treated the same as you say. -- Harry Wood 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Way 6s?
There appear to be two 'way 6' ways (one an island and one a bank}PeterIto 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- now fixed. Dmgroom 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A more general approach option
If multipolygon was allowed to have multiple outers then a whole river could be refined as a number of riverbank sections and the problem would go away. Personally I see the multipolygon relation as more naturally a 'polygon' relation that was multiple outers that make up the polygon (a river in this case). Islands would then associate themselves with the river using the inner role, but could themselves be made up of multiple 'outers'. If this approach was used then the roles would need to have different names to avoid confusion ('perimeter' and 'parent' possibly).PeterIto 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- variant:
<way id='1'><!-- nd --><tag k="waterway" v="riverbank" /></way>
... ways 2-5 ...
<way id='6'><!-- nd --><tag k="waterway" v="riverbank" /></way>
<way id='7'><!-- nd --><tag k="place" v="island" /></way>
<relation id="-1">
<member type="way" ref="1" role="riverbank" />
... ways 2-5 ...
<member type="way" ref="6" role="riverbank" />
<tag k="type" v="waterway" />
<tag k="waterway" v="riverbank" />
</relation>
<relation id="-2">
<tag k="type" v="multipolygon" />
<member type="relation" ref="-1" role="outer">
<member type="way" ref="7" role="inner">
</relation>
wildMan 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that multipolygon relations are wide spread now, so I think we agree this one is easier than the one proposed on the front page. But We could make it even easier with way 7 beeing a member of relation id -1 with role inner
<way id='1'><!-- nd --><tag k="waterway" v="riverbank" /></way>
... ways 2 to 6 ...
<way id='7'><!-- nd --><tag k="place" v="island" /></way>
<relation id="-1">
<member type="way" ref="1" role="outer" />
...members ways 2 to 6 ...
<member type="way" ref="7" role="inner">
<tag k="type" v="multipolygon" />
<tag k="waterway" v="river" />
<tag k="name" v="River of gods" />
</relation>
sletuffe 11:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
river networks with tributaries
Another thing which comes to my mind is a river hierarchy where one uses relations. Svapa River is a tributary of Seym River, which is a tributary of Desna River, which is a tributary of Dnieper. And rivers tend to be long! If you would describe the basin system you would probably like to work with relations being children of another relation...
Possible tags for the relation:
See also: WikiProject Rivers
--katpatuka 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer destination=* instead of tributary_of=* to describe where the destination of the waterway is. destination=* is more multifunctional. destination=* It can also be used in channels, drains and rivers which flow into the Sea, while tributary_of=* applies only to rivers. Smarties 23:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)