Proposal talk:Waterway classification

Water is vague - making more distictions do not alter that fact

E.g. defining river and stream as "natural" waterways doesn't solve the problem that many sections of rivers and streams are man made, or partly or completely made-over by man. Strictly speaking, by that definition Nederland would have almost no rivers and streams, no matters how many subtypes we define. The rationale desribes a general classification issue, but does not address actual problems encountered by mappers and renderers.--Peter Elderson (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between arranging banks, prevent floods and channeling water.

waterway=* includes a wider range of values than only natural ones and it is very suitable to make the difference between natural and man made. Do you know this table?

This proposal could be useful to be more precise about the shape of canals and ditches, beside of usage=*. Fanfouer (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course I know the table. It has exactly the same problem: it assumes a clear distinction between natural and man made, while in reality there isn't. In Nederland, new streams are actively created, and after two years they are indistinguishable from natural streams. Natural streams can be dug out to form channels, indistinguishable from newly dug canals. River sections become canals, canals are groomed to form new rivers. A long section of a meandering river can be cut off but remain a waterway, does it still qualify as river? Does the new river shortcut qualify as river? An old river branch now forms a waterway between two main rivers, and the water flow is actively controlled by decisions based on the (actual or predicted) levels of the two rivers and on the rainfall. Is this section still waterway=river? Etc. Etc. --Peter Elderson (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Each situation should be handled separately, such a list won't help. Main difference between a stream and a canal is the intent. A canal is intended to channel water for a purpose, to keep the most of it for a given usage. It's not comparable to a stream with mostly banks with vegetation and nature around, even if it has been dug by human (intended to infiltrate water, among other purposes). We need to look a the purpose and decide independently for each situation.

There are situation where it's clear. Unclear ones could be discussed locally and choice explained in documentation and description=*. Fanfouer (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In Nederland, most water bodies and waterways have several purposes, intents and uses, increasingly independent of their appearance. How important a particular aspect is, depends on who you ask; very often, there is no primary use or function. This does not fit a hierarchical classification. I think your view supports my view that this proposal does not solve the main problem: the primary split between natural waterways and artificial waterways cannot be made in many cases. I think this issue should at least be addressed. E.g. it could state that artificial sections of long natural waterways (rivers) are seen as waterway=river as well. If that seems obvious, I would still state it as a fact. I think this is more pressing than a table of canal types, even though that is also nice to have.--Peter Elderson (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this proposal is still in draft. It is far from complete and can/will be changed significantly. Although I did mention that I am working on this, the proposal isn't presented yet for thorough review. Therefore lengthy discussion at his stage is premature, although I do welcome input/questions via PM.

Concerning the destinction between natual and man_made waterways: As far as I am concerned this isn't an issue as there are existing keys to "bridge" the difference between natural and man_made like anthropogenic=*, refitted=*. Also the "intent" Peter mentioned has been taken into account but it is not in the proposal yet.

Over the course of the next weeks I will not only receive input from others as well make significant changes to the proposal. Be patient!--Tilia J (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)