OSM maps what is on the ground, not what something was historically. You cannot even put a canoe here, let alone a boat. You can literally jump over it in most places. How is this a river? It's the definition of a ditch along fields or at best stream. It used to be mapped as a ditch before you started changing classification.

You were already asked to not change small streams into rivers. This is not a river, it's barely a stream.

Why was this deleted way/1289608569 ?

@kaposts: I generally agree with you and would not add unmarked parking "spaces" like this, but the difference here is that a different section had different surface. I don't really know how else to show this information. Yes, capacity is missing and would need to be added (but, honestly, there are so many places this is needed).

@L4PSA: In this example, the four locations were way/1552527751/history and around.

I think there are theoretically some hazards that can be identified unambiguously and mappers can agree on rare exceptions to tag such places. But in general, it's pretty much always some variation of "signed":

hazard=*#Tagging_guidelines

I don't think anything to do with wildlife could be an exception, because it's all just really random. I don't know of any other established tags for this either. I don't think there are any since OSM specifically discourages subjective tagging and such tags would get removed anyway by others.

Even if you see a real-life "hazard", that doesn't make it something that can be mapped necessarily. You can see animals crossing roads all the time in all sorts of places from remote rural roads to major highways, especially at night. The hazard (sign) is for something that is especially dangerous. That's why I mentioned objective criteria, because everyone is going to randomly see animals in different locations and OSM isn't for "recording wildlife sightings", so to speak.

osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahazard%3Danimal_crossing also specifically says to only use it for signed sections.