Rivers, Wadi, width ?

I have noticed several rivers in the south changed tags from river (or stream) to Wadi, which is great, as it draw the correct dashed rendering, so I have implemented the same tagging for other rivers as well.
My question is regarding a wide wadi such as Nahal Nizana which can exceed a width of 150m and the correct way to represent its width.
I have tried a “riverbank” tag, but it only works for a flowing river.
Another question that comes to mind is, should I use ‘intermittent’ tag for a wadi ?

Again, there is a difference between the rendering rules, which differ between the various maps, and the map data they all read.
Which map/s were you referring to?

Special tagging of Wadis was implemented in the Israel Hiking map. We could easily treat ‘intermittent=yes’ equally.

I leave it for the experts to define the best tagging from a map data perspective, although it seems like ‘intermittent’ is much more widely used than ‘wadi’…

I was referring to both the standard OSM and the Israeli Hiking map. In both cases, Wadis appear as blue dashed lines.
What about the width of the Wadi and the correct way to show it on the map ?

The Israel Hiking map was upgraded to support water=river areas with intermittent=yes tag.

The result can be seen around this (intermittent) stream fork:

It also supports waterway=stream and waterway=river with intermittent=yes tags as an alternative for waterway=wadi.

Thank you,

please review the southern part of that river where I added a riverbank.
If it’s in the correct standard, I will complete the rest of the northern part.

The result is problematic in all other renderings. See the newly formed lake near באר מילכה in mapnik and cyclemap.

If we obey the “Never map for a renderer” principle, then the question should be directed to mapnik and cyclemap owners…

Any other ideas!?

By the way, according to tagstat, there are 152,788 intermittent tags on waterways and only 344 wadi tags on waterway tags.

Well, sometimes it’s better to use common sense than principles.
Sadly, though I don’t have a better idea.
Maybe we should propose a new tag. Riverbed or something.

New tags will not help if you want these features to be visible in mapnik and cyclemap…

Over time they will render them if they are useful tags.
We can live with dry riverbeds missing in the Negev, we can’t live with large non-existent lakes springing up there.
I believe there’s an official process for getting new tags accepted.

Yes and no,
If you are familiar with Nitsana river than you know it’s not a shallow river bank but actual vertical drops of several meters that define it in many places, Not something we can just overlook. Not to mention its sheer width which clearly can not be represented as a thin line on the map.
On the other hand you are absolutely right about it looking like the Thames.

So what is the final verdict ? :stuck_out_tongue:

Drops can be represented with the cliff tag maybe.
This should be raised in a more general forum. I’m sure it’s also a problem in the USA Southwest and in Australia.