Proposal to connect NHD waterways in Oklahoma with a mechanical edit, requesting feedback

I’m personally fine with this and believe it would be greatly useful. I’m on the assumption that the NHD code you mentioned is equivalent or near enough to it to be reasonably synonymous.

From experience? A lot of the hydrology at the headwaters here is alluvial, intermittent or otherwise completely I obvious when not currently innundated.

Generally nhd will have those segments though so it’s a bit odd they are left out no?

Armchair mappers? When you got a dry plowed field with a crop on it, it’s unlikely they are to notice an intermittent body of water that floods part of the field, especially if it was imported and has no intermittent indicator. Just looks like human terraforming killed the stream. Other segments fell out of the downloaded scope.

Ah, the portion I was asking about has ways that are from NHD. Seemed odd to have dropped a bunch of middle segments. Perhaps we will never know.

I should have been more clear. I was talking about specifically a situation where I would assume the data source imported ate something bogus myself, and therefore consider the most likely scenario. I generally know my region fairly well but I’m obviously not going to go spend a day driving to some field halfway across the state to doublecheck a wet spot for a possible stream that should be there but isn’t.

1 Like

Came across a similar (if smaller) problem (disconnected waterways) in Illinois, added 15 years ago (!) in this changeset: Changeset: 2404947 | OpenStreetMap . If anyone is interested in fixing it…