Talk:WATARE
jens 08:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Result of investigations for waterway ProdSpec
jens 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
added siltation here for two reasons:
- the attribute has had no feature to which it was accompanied
- the string is a perfect way to describe siltation verbally if not having any particular details on hand. In that way it can work with waterway area because it has no influence on the charted details. That follows the philosophy of waterway area, keeping chartable details out of NPUB domain.
jens 12:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)replaced CHALIM by APPLIC
raphael (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2018 (CET): Needs to be harmonized with, or distinguished from, the Inland ENC feature WaterwayArea (wtware) defined in the GI registry as "An area in which uniform general information of the waterway exists".
jens (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (CET) I would tend to agree. What I learnt is that the registry could have two similar entries with different definitions. Important is that they are not in the same register.
However, the intention of a waterway was to provide information which cannot/should not be provided to specific charted entries such as SEAARE.
I have no objections against the InlandENC definition and the feature could be reused.
raphael (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2018 (CET): I too have no strong views on it, but the NIPWG definition is the same as the IHO Hydrographic dictionary definition of Waterway and therefore more "standard". I think we put the question to Jeff and see. It's possible that when the registry is overhauled the IENC definition might be superseded by the Hydrographic Dictionary ans we have to change back.
Let's use the current Wiki definition in S-127, and see what happens to Waterway Area in the registry this summer.