I'm working on adding island s and other features in the Tanana River in Alaska. There are many named sloughs (side channels), islands and in some areas curves or bends that have a name. In my example there is a large bend in the river that has its own name, Harper Bend.

If I break the river at both ends of the curve, I could add the name to the section between the breaks but that doesn't seem right because the river's name isn't changing. Another much more complicated solution would be to break the riverbank into sections and add a name to the one that encompasses the bend.

Suggestions? Opinions?

asked 27 Sep '18, 06:54

AlaskaDave's gravatar image

accept rate: 14%


Would a single node somewhere on the bend be appropriate in this situation? Since the bend's delimitations aren't probably geographically delimited?

(27 Sep '18, 07:15) robinmetral

Well, that might work although it would be such a small object one would have to look closely at a map to see it. Also this presents the problem of deciding how to tag and render this new object. Using pieces of the riverbank or a section of the river might make rendering a non-issue.

Alternatively, if we could come up with a special case tag, say, for example, waterway=river_bend or something similar. I might take this question to the tagging list to see if there are any other suggestions.

Thanks for your comment.

(27 Sep '18, 10:47) AlaskaDave

I had a look at "well known" examples (such as on the Thames in London, referred to in Oxford v Cambridge boat race commentry) and I couldn't see any. Maybe look elsewhere and see what people have used? Failing that, maybe just a "place=locality" node?

(27 Sep '18, 11:24) SomeoneElse ♦

I had that thought too but decided against it because place=locality, while allowing one to put a name on the bend, confers nothing about the fact that it is a feature of a river. Instead, at least to me, it implies a place where people live or used to live.

(28 Sep '18, 08:34) AlaskaDave

I would suggest a named place=locality node, as SomeoneElse mentioned.

This is then semantically not connected to the river, of course, but that could be achieved (if necessary) by adding it to a river relation, as neuhausr mentioned.

You could set the node directly as a node of the waterway=river way, then the connection will be clearer even without a relation.

permanent link

answered 28 Sep '18, 09:17

gormo's gravatar image

accept rate: 13%

Assuming this river has a relation, could you create a named area for this bend which is part of the larger river relation? As an example, this is something I've thought about doing (but haven't yet) for Lake Pepin which is part of the Mississippi River.

permanent link

answered 27 Sep '18, 15:58

neuhausr's gravatar image

accept rate: 21%

Yes, that is one alternative. But it is a much more complicated solution than some others.

I have taken this question to the tagging list where we're hashing out ideas. If you care to follow along or contribute, please do it there. Sorry for the inconvenience. If we come up with anything worthwhile, I'll post it here for the benefit of future mappers.

(28 Sep '18, 08:30) AlaskaDave
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

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



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:


question asked: 27 Sep '18, 06:54

question was seen: 735 times

last updated: 28 Sep '18, 09:17

powered by OSQA