Hi Martin:

This circle is used a guide to help align the
adjoining railway route, the name is the radius.

thanks,
Baden

I guess I should state it has been corrected.

Baden

thanks!
{:-)

Hi Freebeer:

Thanks for the tip! What I did for the "new" section you restored, was just enclose it and copy of the tags from the previous (southern) Athabasca River section I separated from the Snaring section.

I am still not 100% clear on the proper or best way to tag these rivers. My understanding is that the 'ways' have minimal tagging (line?) and the parent 'relation' has the complete attributes. I will need to review all these, and also convert all the inners, but it may take awhile.

thanks,
Baden

Hola Viajero:

I think it is important to separate form from function.

Examples are "concrete", where highways, sidewalks, and buildings can all be concrete, or "grass", where gardens, sport pitches, and savanna can all be grass.

The material substance should be secondary to the primary descriptor.

From my understanding, "shingles" are consistent rounded pebbles usually associated with beaches, where wave action has removed finer particles.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingle_beach

From my experience, alluvial deposits run the gamut from large boulders (and even exposed bedrock) and gravel on fast flowing upstream sections to fine clay and sand in slower flowing downstream sections. The latter are often impossible to walk on (gumbo). Braided streams tend to be the former, and are usually an amalgamation or stratae of varying sizes. I very rarely (never?) have encountered pure "shingles" which would warrant that material descriptor. I would describe these braided channels near Field as mixed "gravel".

I see the ultimate objective as describing a riverbed function only immersed during spring freshets and occasional floods, and devoid of permanent vegetation. Braided streams and alluvial fans are often never entirely immersed, and result from meandering stream action. "Waterway=Riverbank", and "Intermittent=yes" seem to get rendered appropriately in Mapnik, separating main streams and permanent water from bare riverbed. "Natural=Riverbed" may more accurately help separate permanent channels from intermittently immersed non-vegetated (forested?) areas.

thanks,
Baden

Hola Viajero:

I've looked at this a lot, and it seemed a little challenging. "water" and "intermittent" seemed to provide an improved rendering. After your note, I searched some more, and this seems to be the ideal solution:

osm.wiki/Tag%3Anatural%3Driverbed

I am trying it out to see what results.

The river bottom itself can be any of an amalgamation of alluvial deposits. As it states:

especially natural=sand, natural=shingle, natural=bare_rock, natural=mud, natural=scrub - specific tags for types of surface/landcover which are often found in riverbeds.

thanks,
Baden

Viajero:

Thanks! I didn't want to do anything until after the reversion, as the possibility existed that it all could be reverted.

Freebeer:

I look at OSM as a pastime like gardening, unfortunately gardening doesn't seem to be as addictive nor time consuming (wasting) as OSM. {:-)

thanks,
Baden

Hi Freebeer:

Thanks so much for your assistance!

I now have my work cut out for me, as these braided rivers are a confusing mess, on the ground, and on 'paper'. I wish Canvec didn't have all the little streamlets, as they are transitory, as often are the main channels.

thanks again,
Baden

Hi FreeBeer:

Would it be possible for you to correct this error, as I am not able to?

thanks,
Baden

Hi Freebeer:

I have very limited competence in investigating these things, however, from what I could ascertain, the deficiency only came to my attention after the whole river section disappeared on Mapnik. I have no recollection of recently seeing that section when I was modify it, however, it still exists on OpenTopoMap, so I can only surmise it was due to my recent actions.

Looking at Relation: Snaring River (6447166), I can see that I was the first person to touch it since three years ago. relation/6447166/history#map=11/53.0260/-118.0129 Changeset: 73230469 covers the affected area to Brule Lake, so I am guessing this may be where the deletion occurred.

As far as the "unholy mess" mess goes, I took on a project that I knew was risky, and it turned out to be more complex than anticipated. Besides having a actual complex braided river system, the OSM riverbank, water, streams, and woods are all congruent or overlapping, and difficult to identify and separate. The Canvec data is also extremely erroneous.

thanks,
Baden

Hi Freebeer:

Thanks for your response.

Ideally, it would be preferable to add or restore the missing river way only from the Snaring mouth to Brule Lake without impacting the subsequent changes. I could then manually change the isolated islands over to the new Athabasca River relation, as I did with the upper Athabasca River.

Practically, I realise that this may not be possible, so a reversion may be required.

In hindsight, the better way to spit this up, would have been to rename the relation "Snaring River" to "Athabasca River", and then split the actual Snaring River off, and deal with that smaller and more manageable relation separately.

thanks,
Baden

Does "Hawk Mountain Route" actually have bicycle access?

Is there any way to reduce the amount of nodes on this route?

thanks,
Baden

It looks like I probably inadvertently deleted a whole section of river bank [Relation: Snaring River (6447166)] a few days back on the Athabasca River between Snaring river and Brule Lake. It was incorrectly named "Snaring River". The transgression may have been in Changeset: 73236201.

I was in the process of correcting the incorrect name by splitting the rivers (ways) at the Snaring mouth. I made a new Relation: Athabasca River (9905661) and renamed and added the upper Athabasca River between Snaring River mouth and Jasper.

Baden

It looks like I probably inadvertently deleted a whole section of river bank [Relation: Snaring River (6447166)] a few days back on the Athabasca River between Snaring river and Brule Lake. It was incorrectly named "Snaring River". The transgression may have been in Changeset: 73236201.

I was in the process of correcting the incorrect name by splitting the rivers (ways) at the Snaring mouth. I made a new Relation: Athabasca River (9905661) and renamed and added the upper Athabasca River between Snaring River mouth and Jasper.

Baden

It looks like I probably inadvertently deleted a whole section of river bank [Relation: Snaring River (6447166)] a few days back on the Athabasca River between Snaring river and Brule Lake. It was incorrectly named "Snaring River". The transgression may have been in Changeset: 73236201.

I was in the process of correcting the incorrect name by splitting the rivers (ways) at the Snaring mouth. I made a new Relation: Athabasca River (9905661) and renamed and added the upper Athabasca River between Snaring River mouth and Jasper.

Baden

The Oyen subdivision looks like it has been reinstated. https://www.cn.ca/-/media/Files/About-CN/Company-Information/three-year-plan-en.pdf

Does anyone (Pnrrth?) have some updated information?

There was a big duplicated railway segment, which I labeled to delete. I forgot to re-label the one segment in question which was retained

Thanks for the tip.

There are two issues here:

1) The legal (watershed) boundary for Yoho Park is incorrectly described in the Parks Act to terminate on the Alberta-B.C border at Mount Rhondda. However, the actual watershed joins the continental divide north of Mount Rhondda. I moved the Yoho border north to be hydrologically more accurate, and removed the redundant north Mount Rhondda.

2) I am not sure why "Yoho Park doesn't render". If you view "relation/9368703", the entire Yoho Park boundary is depicted. The parameters are the same as adjacent parks. If I zoom in (14), the boundary is visible.

ciao,
Baden

Thanks for removing this without notification, I know it must have been a huge burr in your butt!

While you're at it, could you remove all those "hires" lines in Asia?

thanks,
Baden

Hola Sr. VP:

Yes, I had temporarily changed the park boundary to a road to enable it to be visible on other maps, specifically OpenTopoMap and Sentinel2.

I will need to review the boundary section that I re-drew to correlate deviations with the other maps.

Thanks for reminding me,
Baden