Way 4278754, visible at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.965081&lon=-1.336903&zoom=18&layers=M in Potlatch 2 and heading north, is tagged as 'name = River Itchen (mainstream)', but not as 'waterway = river', so rendering engines do not show it. This results in rendered maps showing the River Itchen starting and stopping abruptly. I suspect that the culprit is the redaction bot, but the change history suggests that the 'waterway' tag may have been removed some time ago. Am I entitled to reinstate the 'waterway = river' tag, based on any or all of the following?

1: The way is still tagged as 'name = River Itchen' and I know that the Itchen is a river.

2: Rivers just don't start and stop in the alluvial plains of southern Hampshire, so way 4278754 must be a continuation of the river shown to the south.

3: Bing imagery shows a line of trees continuing north from where the existing mapping of the river stops. In this part of England, that often indicates that a river is present beneath the trees.

Any help or advice would be appreciated.

asked 25 Jul '12, 20:33

Madryn's gravatar image

Madryn
2.2k365180
accept rate: 13%

edited 25 Jul '12, 21:14

According to the history of the way either the redaction bot or user jamiem2006 deleted the waterway=river tag.

(26 Jul '12, 09:29) scai ♦

That's partly why I asked for help. The description of the edit by jamiem2006 includes 'Deleted waterway'. Between that edit and the redaction bot the list shows only node edits, and the description of the redaction bot's edit does not include deleting the 'waterway' tag. However, I can't believe that a substantial section of the Itchen has been missing since 2008 and that I was the first person to notice it, last week, so I think it must have been a redaction edit.

(26 Jul '12, 23:35) Madryn

Any and all of those are valid reasons to retag it. Go ahead.

You'll find plenty of this sort of thing across the world.

permanent link

answered 25 Jul '12, 21:48

Richard's gravatar image

Richard ♦
27.8k40247369
accept rate: 19%

1

I have added the tag as suggested. Thanks to Richard and Andy for your advice.

(25 Jul '12, 22:53) Madryn
2

It is perfectly acceptable to "guess-map" (e.g. inferring the presence of a river from a line of trees), however it might make sense to use a "source" tag either on the object itself or on the changeset as a whole that indicates the relative vagueness of what you mapped (e.g. source=extrapolation or so).

(26 Jul '12, 09:10) Frederik Ramm ♦

As you say "waterway=river" is missing on this section and I wonder like you if redaction caused it. I tried to discover more without success. If no one with more expertise replies in a day I would add waterway=river tag so that it renders the same as the other section of river. I realise this more support than an answer.

permanent link

answered 25 Jul '12, 21:36

andy%20mackey's gravatar image

andy mackey
11.8k74126260
accept rate: 4%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×62
×16

question asked: 25 Jul '12, 20:33

question was seen: 2,464 times

last updated: 26 Jul '12, 23:35

powered by OSQA