4 ms·
It's missing man made channels. Some natural waterways end in a channel which ends in another natural waterway. All of three should be connected but the channel
by pmontra 3y ago
It's missing man made channels. Some natural waterways end in a channel which ends in another natural waterway. All of three should be connected but the channel in between breaks the connection and the channel is not marked on the map. Probably the first waterway ended up into another natural one before men made the channel, because water flows no matter what.
- Aachen 3y agoDo you have an example? It sounds like either you're saying the website is missing a tag like waterway=ditch or you haven't seen the "include canals" button or so, but with an example it's probably easiest to tell which. The underlying database probably has the data you're missing
- pmontra 3y agoI didn't see the second radio button. The first one is "only waterway=river" The second one is "with waterway & name" It does not refer to canals but the effect is to also include them. Maybe all of them is too much but finding the only canal the merges two waterways could be difficult. No idea.
- samtho 3y agoI was able to select waterway and canals and, in California, I was able to see prominent ones like the California aqueduct that runs from Tracy to LA and smaller ones like the south Folsom canal that runs from Lake Natoma to the former nuclear power plant Rancho Seco.
- mannykannot 3y ago"Include canals" does not seem to distinguish between canals that have replaced natural drainage channels, and those that connect different watersheds - which may or may not be what you want. This is noticeable, for example, in the English midlands, where the major watersheds merge into one connected entity (maybe because of the network of pre-railroad navigation canals?)