Thanks for spotting. I haven’t looked at the aerial, just in the data and it was plausibel to me 
I added the main stream and changed the lock to side stream.
1 Like
So thanks for spotting it! And it seems this one is fixed: so maybe you will find one more looking at the map 
@amapanda_ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ Amanda, one more radio button request for the grand finale: A combo of “unnamed waterway” & " with waterway & name . Purely topological grouping" kind of “all waterways”. (Been mapping and digging, found old named springs, a whole collection in fact in the Atri zone but not the names streams kicking off from those springs in legible form, a pdf of old docs when zoomed changes to blur). All them feed into several rivers. The combined view would give an almost 3D picture of how all the hills and valleys are connected.
Ta
It would be nice if streams could be included to show watersheds clearer.
First, this is a fantastic tool, thanks!
I was thinking about the view
with
waterway&nametags. grouped by topology & name
and I think it’s a shame rivers are divided because they have different name=* tags when they cross borders. Would it be possible to see if two connected rivers have same name:xx=*, in any languages? If any language matches, it’s the same river. In my experience this would be a perfectly fine approximation, it wouldn’t use relations, and a lot of rivers would be correctly grouped already.
Updates:
- While mapping, I found a bug in JOSM which @TaylorSmock has fixed.
- There’s now an RSS Feed of data updates
. - An “edit in iD” button.
- I’m almost finished Game of Thrones.
- a boatable waterways view. All you boat & canal enthusiasts can now fix topology errors!
I want to add all streams in the world. but that needs so much memory that it gets killed. I’m continuing to refactor and improve the code to support it.
I notice this situation when trying to track down gaps. There are tagging suggestions for tagging “no there is no one name here”.
I’ve changed the code to look at the existence of any name or name:* tag, so those ways without a name will not be excluded.
To link across languages, it now groups based on the wikidata tag, if it exists, and then falls back to the name tag. For waterways which cross languages, just add the wikidata tag to all the parts.
I then discovered this doesn’t work for the river Rhine, as only a small part of the ways have wikidata tags. 
(yes, I know about relations)
Thanks to all the people who are using this, it’s very encouraging. I can already see that the data is much better than it was when I started. It’s great to see that if you surface errors to OSMers, they will fix it and make the map data better. 
4 Likes
But why would you shy away from relations and try to accommodate what is realistically bad modeling? When I map waterways, I virtually always create a waterway relation along and put wikidata tags only there (and claim it’s the best practice 
). Ideally, one feature should be mapped with one OSM element, and only one feature should have wikidata tag.
Geofabrik has a similar feature as yours, and as you can see practically all European rivers have a waterway relation.
5 Likes
There is a feature of the Geofabrik OSM Inspector which shows “Points where one way tagged with waterway=river flows in a smaller waterway type”, which might help you find that.
View it here: Possible waterway type errors in OSMI
Ideally, one feature should be mapped with one OSM element, and only one feature should have wikidata tag.
Sometimes, but not necessarily. What is a “feature” depends on the definition, wikidata has their own definition (item properties), which must not be the exact same as we have in OpenStreetMap, tagging a wikidata item in OpenStreetMap means it is strongly related, not that it is identical in all aspects. For example the same place could be a town in OpenStreetMap and a city in Wikidata.
1 Like
I said “ideally”, didn’t I?
Simply, the existence of one named “feature” in real life suggests there shall be one Wikidata item associated with it, and preferably one OSM map feature. For technical (e.g. 2,000 points limit on ways) and tagging reasons (splitting a waterway into river/stream/culverts), we are often forced to model that by splitting the named feature into a group of smaller ones.
However, we practically always have an option to glue the whole thing back together using a relation. My point is that we should (as a best practice) use that relation as the object that will hold the common feature properties (such as name and wikidata) rather than having them spread over the plethora of components.
4 Likes
yes, this is why I thought it should be mentioned that wikidata follows different rules and represents the world slightly differently compared to how osm does it, so not every “thing” that is a wikidata item is a thing in osm in the same way (e.g. what is expressed as an entity (category like) in wikidata might be represented with tags in osm). The ideal is not to have 1:1 matching with wikidata, I think, while we could data model wise create such explicit relationships with relations, we refrain from it when the same information can be otherwise codified (spatially, with tags, etc.), because the alternatives are usually “lighter” and easier to maintain.
This is getting off-topic, guys.
1 Like
Hey Amanda, are you still considering to ignore “none”-waterways (dam,weir,lock_gate, sluice_gate and security_lock) from your waterway=* views?
1 Like
I initally made osm-lump-ways, the tool that powers this, to look at named roads. In addition, lots of rivers & waterways aren’t in waterway relations, so we still need tags on ways.
Drawing a very blank map at the moment no matter what radio button selected. /o\
(Just discovered the name for a stream which led to a document discussing the many sources of ‘The Ruzzo’. A whole mountain flank range is feeding into this one many dozens of miles worth, mix rain/snow melt fed).
2 Likes
I’ve added a new view for that, it’s waterway∉dam,weir,lock_gate,sluice_gate,security_lock,fairway,dock,boatyard,fuel,riverbank,pond,check_dam,turning_point,water_point,spillway. Any other “values to excluide”? Check back in a day or two when it’s updated
1 Like
After many requests, and hacking with bit twiddling, integer encoding, and byte packing I can now fit lots more nodes in memory! 
.
So I added streams! 
You can now see all connected waterway tags: OSM River Basins Happy Mapping. 
2 Likes
A star got brighter
(The Piomba jumped from 40 to 77km worth of feeds, the Vomano hit a dazzling 268km with the additional Ruzzo contrirbuting… now we’re talking :0)
1 Like
That certainly coloured in most of the World! 
1 Like
I used the osm-river-basins to spot waterways of the Saint-Lawrence river to connect. This is a major river basin from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Saint-Lawrence. I started with rivers = 17,000 km.
The numbers slightly increased since then
- rivers : 61,000 km
- rivers+ canals : 67,000 km
- all waterways : 1,712,000 km
2 Likes