@AndersAndersson Thanks for bringing this up since itâs another data issue with rapids tagging patterns worth explaining.
For clarity, Iâve been doing a lot of whitewater cleanup and only in a couple instances did I replace a waterway=rapids
line with a node + attribute tags on the river segment. I did not destroy any data, just moved it. Let me illustrate:
Itâs nice to map individual rapids as distinct point of interest features. This helps with rendering and geocoding. Rapids have been mapped as individual nodes, lines, and areas. Nodes and areas work well, but lines have been mapped inconsistently.
Some mappers draw waterway=rapids
lines laterally along the crest of a rapid:
Some mappers draw waterway=rapids
lines longitudinally along the flow of the river. These tend to overlap with waterway=river
features.
Sometimes they are glued together, which is difficult to maintain:
Sometimes they replace the river entirely, which is unexpected and removes valuable information like the name of the river:
If we canât be sure if a given waterway=rapids
line is mapped across the river or along the river, then we canât do things like measure a rapidâs length or render arrows on the downstream side. It would be much better to pick one or the other as standard.
Really, lateral and longitudinal rapids are actually two different types of features. The first is an individual ârapidâ where waters flow over a drop. The second is a section of swiftly-moving river that may have a distinct name. As such, Iâve started moving the tags for rapids mapped longitudinally to the waterway=river
segment, which has the relevant geometry. The rapid POI itself can then be mapped as a waterway=rapids
node, or ideally as a natural=water
+ water=rapids
area. You can still query the river tags if you want to know the length of a specific rapid.
Since no data consumers appear to be relying on the prior tagging pattern, I didnât feel the need to ask permission before making the change.