Deep learning waterways for rural infrastructure development

Matthew Pierson; Zia Mehrabi

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Deep learning waterways for rural infrastructure development

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read WaterNet, a model trained on US waterways, is reported to capture 93% of rural community bridge requests across seven African countries, versus 36% for OpenStreetMap and 62% for TDX-Hydro.

desk verdict A solid applied paper with a genuinely novel community-based evaluation, but the 93% recall claim lacks African precision validation and should be revised before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13590 v1 pith:NUPSZLEM submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Matthew Pierson , Zia Mehrabi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG

keywords WaterNetwaterwaysmappingdeeplearningsatelliteimagerydigitalelevationmodelruralinfrastructurecommunitybridgerequestshydrography

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that a deep learning model trained only on United States hydrography labels can, when deployed in Africa, map waterways that current global datasets miss. Evidence is recall of independently collected community bridge requests: WaterNet captures 93% on average (88-96% by country), while OpenStreetMap captures 36% (5-72%) and TDX-Hydro 62% (37-85%). If this holds, large numbers of waterways relevant to rural access to schools, health care, and markets remain unmapped, and the approach offers a way to find them from public satellite and elevation data. The authors acknowledge that precision is measured only against US National Hydrography Dataset labels, which is the key assumption in transferring results to Africa.

What carries the argument

WaterNet is a U-Net-style convolutional neural network whose input channels are transformed Sentinel-2 near-infrared-RGB bands plus NDVI, NDWI, shifted elevation, elevation x- and y-deltas, and elevation gradient. It is trained with binary cross-entropy loss weighted per NHD feature code, so streams are up-weighted and non-waterway features masked. Post-processing thins the 40-m raster to a skeleton, vectorizes the skeleton into polylines, and assigns a modified Strahler order so that low-order and high-order streams can be compared separately. The pipeline runs on public data and requires no local ground truth at deployment.

What would settle it

Select a sample of WaterNet-drawn stream segments in the seven African countries, verify their existence against very-high-resolution satellite imagery or field GPS surveys, and compute in-country precision; if in-country precision is far below the US 83%, the reported 93% recall of community bridge requests could be inflated by over-prediction rather than true mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that a convolutional network (WaterNet) combining Sentinel-2 optical imagery with Copernicus DEM elevation derivatives learns a generalizable signature of waterways from NHD training labels. Deployed wall-to-wall in eight African countries, its vectorized output reproduces TDX-Hydro in well-mapped areas but adds substantial additional detail, particularly low-order streams. Evaluated against 4,790 community bridge requests, WaterNet's recall (93%) is higher than both baselines in nearly every country. The authors interpret this as evidence that unmapped waterways are precisely the ones that matter for rural infrastructure needs, and that the US-trained model does not simply over-predict everywhere, citing 83% of its US points falling within 200m of NHD lines.

Load-bearing premise

Precision measured in the United States (83% of WaterNet points within 200 m of NHD) is assumed to hold in African deployment geographies, so that WaterNet's higher recall reflects real waterways rather than a denser but partly false stream network.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If WaterNet's recall transfers, existing global waterways datasets under-count the streams that actually obstruct rural communities, and infrastructure needs assessments built on them will miss a large share of sites.
Because all input data (Sentinel-2, Copernicus DEM) are public and operational, the same trained weights can be deployed to other data-scarce regions without new labeled data.
Mapping low-order streams matters: 63% of the community requests fall on order-1 or order-2 streams, the classes that global datasets most often omit.
The model's outputs can be combined with higher-resolution DEM-based products such as TDX-Hydro to improve both coverage and detail.
Tuning the loss weighting for features like swamps changes outputs toward flood and disaster detection, suggesting the same architecture can serve humanitarian monitoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: If African precision is materially lower than the US 83%—which the paper does not measure—the recall gap over community requests could partly reflect over-predicted stream density, and a direct precision check against field or very-high-resolution imagery in the deployment countries would resolve this.
Editorial extension: The bridge-request dataset is not a uniform sample, with coverage ranging from nationwide to opportunistic, so country-level recall comparisons should be read with that sampling in mind.
Editorial extension: The same pipeline could be transferred to other water-scarce or data-poor regions, and its fcode-weighting suggests the model can be tuned for different water features, such as ephemeral streams or flood inundation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know about this paper for the B2P validation alone: the authors trained a U-Net on US NHD labels with Sentinel-2 and Copernicus DEM, deployed it in eight African countries, and show it catches 88–96% of community bridge requests, far above OSM (5–72%) and TDX-Hydro (37–85%). That is a real, externally grounded result, and it suggests the model is capturing waterways that matter to people, not just hydrographic features. The writing is clear and the methods are mostly reproducible: data and validation code are on Dataverse, and the model architecture and training are described in enough detail to rebuild. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note puts its finger. The only precision check is against NHD in the US, where the model was trained. That answers the "predict everything" criticism only in the US; it does not tell you whether WaterNet is over-drawing in African landscapes with different soils, vegetation, seasonality, and DEM artifacts. The recall comparisons with OSM and TDX cannot serve as African precision validation because the paper's whole point is that those datasets miss waterways. Without an African false-positive estimate, a negative control, or manual/field validation of predicted reaches, the 93% recall might partly reflect network density rather than true detection. The authors do acknowledge the naive model criticism and use US precision to rebut it, but they don't report any African precision or a null model that matches the predicted line density. That's the gap that needs closing. Minor issues: the fcode weights and the 0.002-degree hit threshold are hand-chosen, and the B2P request sampling is heterogeneous across countries (full-coverage in Rwanda, opportunistic in Liberia/Zambia). These are not fatal, but they narrow the strength of the country-level claims. Who is this for? Applied geospatial ML and development researchers, and anyone using OSM or TDX for rural infrastructure planning. If the authors add an African precision analysis (even a small manual sample, or a density-matched null), the paper would be quite solid. As it stands, I'd send it to peer review with a request for revision. The core idea is strong and the B2P validation is a genuinely novel evaluation.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents WaterNet, a U-Net-style convolutional network trained on US National Hydrography Dataset labels with Sentinel-2 imagery and Copernicus DEM inputs, and deploys it to map waterways in eight African countries. The central empirical claim is that WaterNet captures 93% (country range 88-96%) of community bridge requests collected by Bridges to Prosperity across six African countries, compared with 36% for OpenStreetMap and 62% for TDX-Hydro, and that this shows the model identifies previously unmapped waterways of direct importance to rural infrastructure planning. The authors also report US precision against NHD (83% of inner segment points within 200 m) as evidence against the concern that the model simply over-predicts waterways everywhere.

Significance. If the African predictions are as precise as the US validation suggests, WaterNet would be a scalable and operationally deployable method for filling gaps in global waterway maps in data-scarce regions, with direct applications to rural infrastructure targeting. The work has several genuine strengths: the B2P bridge-request validation set is independent of training and was not used for model tuning, so the recall comparison is an external measurement; the validation code and data are made publicly available via Harvard Dataverse; and the paper explicitly discusses the naive-model criticism rather than ignoring it. The main uncertainty is load-bearing: the precision estimate that rules out over-prediction is measured only in the United States, whereas the headline claim is about African deployment, where land cover, hydrology, DEM quality, and the distribution of stream sizes differ. The paper's current evidence does not exclude the possibility that the recall advantage reflects higher false-positive density in Africa rather than detection of previously unmapped waterways.

major comments (3)

[Main text, 'A potential criticism...' paragraph; Methods 3.7] The precision check against the naive-model concern is conducted entirely in the United States: Extended Data Table 1 reports distances to NHD only for US watersheds, and Methods 3.7 states that comparisons in Europe and Africa use OSM and TDX as reference datasets. Because recall in the B2P comparison is defined as the fraction of request points within 0.002 degrees of a predicted waterway, any model that draws a denser network in Africa will mechanically achieve higher recall even with no improvement in true positive rate. Neither OSM nor TDX can serve as an African precision reference, since the paper's own claim is that WaterNet detects waterways those datasets miss. The paper therefore needs a direct African precision or false-positive estimate, for example: manual inspection of a random sample of predicted reaches on high-resolution imagery, field visits to a subset of B2P sites, negative control locations, or a comparison of predicted network density against an independent hydrologically plausible prior. Without such evidence, the headline recall advantage over OSM and TDX remains ambiguous as evidence of previously unmapped waterways.
[Methods 3.8, Community Requests] The B2P request data have heterogeneous sampling designs that differ by country: full-coverage nationwide (Rwanda), full-coverage within specific regions (Uganda, Ethiopia), full coverage within 5 km buffers (Côte d'Ivoire), and opportunistic sampling (Zambia, Liberia, Ethiopia). The abstract reports an average recall of 93% but does not state whether this is an unweighted mean across countries or weighted by request count. If the average is unweighted, it may be dominated by small opportunistic samples; if weighted, it is dominated by the largest samples. This matters because with opportunistic sampling, the request set may be enriched for communities already known to have crossing difficulties, which could inflate the measured recall of any dataset. Please report per-country request counts, clarify the weighting in the average, and provide a sensitivity analysis restricted to the full-coverage countries to confirm the 93% figure is not an artifact of sampling design.
[Section 3.5, modified Strahler order; Figure 1 and Extended Data Figure 3] The stream-order-stratified comparisons in Figure 1 and the claim that a substantial share of B2P requests fall on order 1 and order 2 streams rely on WaterNet's modified Strahler order, which the authors explicitly state is not for water flow routing. It is not documented whether OSM and TDX use the same ordering convention, and standard Strahler order applied to river networks with braided channels and loops can differ substantially from the modified version described here. If the ordering conventions differ, the percentage overlap per stream order is not a clean comparison of detectability, and the argument that WaterNet uniquely captures low-order community-relevant streams is weakened. Please report the stream-order calculation used for OSM and TDX, or restrict the low-order claims to comparisons made under an identical ordering definition.

minor comments (7)

[Section 3.1, Satellite data] The text states that the input features include 10 channels, with the first four being Sentinel-2 NRGB channels and 'the remaining 7' being NDVI, NDWI, shifted elevation, elevation x-delta, elevation y-delta, and elevation gradient; four plus the six listed additional channels equals ten, so the number '7' should be corrected to '6'.
[Section 5, Code Availability] The code availability statement says that WaterNet model code 'will be available in a following publication.' Since the model is the central object of the paper, the training and deployment code should be released with this manuscript or at least a trained checkpoint and inference script should be provided to make the results reproducible.
[Extended Data Table 1] The main text reports '83% of WaterNet's waterway inner segment points can be found within 200m of an NHD waterway, and 74% within 100m,' but the vigintile table does not directly show the 83rd and 74th percentiles; please add the cumulative fractions or the relevant percentile rows to make these figures directly verifiable from the table.
[References [13] and [24]] References [13] and [24] are the same U-Net paper; please cite it once to avoid duplication.
[Main text, 'We find...' paragraph in Section 1] The main text refers to 'the 7 African countries compared' in the stream-order analysis of B2P requests, but Methods 3.8 lists six countries (Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Zambia); please correct the country count.
[Discussion, 'In additional experiments...'] The fine-tuning experiment for swamps and flooding is captioned as Extended Data Figure 2, but the Discussion references Extended Data Figure 3; please correct the cross-reference.
[Main text, 'TDX performs better...'] The phrase 'were we see 76%-85% of requests captured' contains a typo; it should read 'where we see.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: B2P bridge-request recall is externally anchored, and US NHD precision is a standard held-out evaluation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

WaterNet's central claims are not circular. The model is trained on NHD labels (Methods 3.2-3.4), and the US held-out basin agreement with NHD (Extended Data Table 1; Methods 3.7: 'in the USA, our comparisons were direct to the input labels, being derived from the NHD, and represent standard out of sample tests for hold out basins') is a conventional train/test evaluation rather than a prediction that reduces to its inputs. The headline result is the recall of 4,790 independent Bridges to Prosperity community requests (Methods 3.8) by WaterNet versus OSM and TDX-Hydro; these requests are not used in training or in setting the fcode weights or hit thresholds, so the 93% versus 36%/62% comparison is an external, non-circular measurement. The naive-model objection is addressed with US precision, but that precision is not a fitted input to the B2P recall; the concern that US-measured precision may not transfer to Africa is a validity/robustness limitation, not a circularity, because the B2P validation is independently grounded. fcode label weights (Extended Data Table 2) and the 0.002-degree hit threshold affect absolute recall values uniformly across datasets and do not encode the B2P outcome. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: references to NHD, TDX, OSM, U-Net, Sentinel-2, and Copernicus DEM are external, and no 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors is invoked. Deferred code release (Section 5) is a reproducibility gap, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central recall claim rests on the hand-chosen fcode weights, the hit-radius threshold, and the transferability of US precision to Africa. No new physical entities are introduced. The model is a U-Net variant with global attention; its parameters are learned from NHD. The main unverified premise is the domain transfer assumption.

free parameters (3)

fcode label weights = e.g., perennial streams 3.25, swamps 0.5, playa 0.0
Hand-chosen weights in Extended Data Table 2 scale the BCE loss per waterway type and shape the model output; they are chosen by the authors, not learned from the bridge requests.
hit distance threshold = 0.001 and 0.002 degrees (~100m/200m)
Used in Methods 3.7 to define whether a WaterNet point matches a benchmark waterway or a bridge request; the recall numbers in the abstract depend on this choice.
input transform scale 0.6 = 0.6 in f(x)=round(255/(1+e^{-0.6x}))
Hand-selected constant in Methods 3.1 for normalizing satellite channels; affects the pixel values fed to the model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption NHD labels are a complete and accurate representation of US waterways.
The model is trained on NHD; if NHD has systematic omissions (the paper itself shows examples), the model may inherit them.
domain assumption Community bridge requests from Bridges to Prosperity are an independent, representative sample of waterway crossing needs.
Methods 3.8 lists heterogeneous sampling strategies (full coverage, regional, 5km buffers, opportunistic), so representativeness is not guaranteed.
domain assumption A CNN trained on US imagery and DEM generalizes to African terrain, land cover, and waterway appearance.
The deployment assumes the learned features transfer; no African ground-truth precision is measured, so this premise is load-bearing.
domain assumption Sentinel-2 NRGB and Copernicus DEM contain sufficient signal to identify waterways at 40m resolution.
The model's inputs are limited to these channels; any waterways invisible in both modalities cannot be detected.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep learning waterways for rural infrastructure development." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUPSZLEM

@misc{pith2026241113590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep learning waterways for rural infrastructure development},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUPSZLEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13590}
}

read the original abstract

Surprisingly a number of Earth's waterways remain unmapped, with a significant number in low and middle income countries. Here we build a computer vision model (WaterNet) to learn the location of waterways in the United States, based on high resolution satellite imagery and digital elevation models, and then deploy this in novel environments in the African continent. Our outputs provide detail of waterways structures hereto unmapped. When assessed against community needs requests for rural bridge building related to access to schools, health care facilities and agricultural markets, we find these newly generated waterways capture on average 93% (country range: 88-96%) of these requests whereas Open Street Map, and the state of the art data from TDX-Hydro, capture only 36% (5-72%) and 62% (37%-85%), respectively. Because these new machine learning enabled maps are built on public and operational data acquisition this approach offers promise for capturing humanitarian needs and planning for social development in places where cartographic efforts have so far failed to deliver. The improved performance in identifying community needs missed by existing data suggests significant value for rural infrastructure development and better targeting of development interventions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Mapping waterways worldwide with deep learning
cs.CV 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A US-trained U-Net model added about 124 million kilometers of inferred waterways to the global TDX-Hydro dataset, primarily as lower-order, intermittent and ephemeral streams.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

W., Adger, W

Black, R., Arnell, N. W., Adger, W. N., Thomas, D. & Geddes, A. Migration, immobility and displacement outcomes following extreme events. Environmen- tal Science & Policy 27, S32–S43 (2013). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1462901112001475. Global environmental change, extreme environmental events and ’environmental migration’: exp...

work page 2013
[2]

Pregnolato, M., Ford, A., Wilkinson, S. M. & Dawson, R. J. The impact of flooding on road transport: A depth-disruption function. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 55, 67–81 (2017). URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916308367

work page 2017
[3]

Messager, M. L. et al. Global prevalence of non-perennial rivers and streams. Nature 594, 391–397 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

& Di Baldassarre, G

Lindersson, S., Brandimarte, L., M ˚ ard, J. & Di Baldassarre, G. A review of freely accessible global datasets for the study of floods, droughts and their inter- actions with human societies. WIREs Water 7, e1424 (2020). URL https: //wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wat2.1424

doi:10.1002/wat2.1424 2020
[5]

Allen, G. H. & Pavelsky, T. M. Global extent of rivers and streams. Science 361, 585–588 (2018). URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aat0636

doi:10.1126/science.aat0636 2018
[6]

& Belward, A

Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping off global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Yamazaki, D. et al. Merit hydro: A high-resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography dataset. Water Resources Research 55, 5053–5073 (2019). URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019WR024873

doi:10.1029/2019wr024873 2019
[8]

& Grill, G

Lehner, B. & Grill, G. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s large river systems.Hydrol. Process. 27, 2171–2186 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 23 references

[9]

Yan, D. et al. A data set of global river networks and corresponding water resources zones divisions. Scientific Data 6, 219 (2019)

2019
[10]

Tdx-hydro

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Tdx-hydro. https://earth-info.nga. mil/. Accessed: 2024

2024
[11]

Moortgat, J. et al. Deep learning models for river classification at sub-meter resolutions from multispectral and panchromatic commercial satellite imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 282, 113279 (2022). URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425722003856

2022
[12]

https://apps.nationalmap.gov/ downloader/ (2001)

National hydrography dataset (NHD). https://apps.nationalmap.gov/ downloader/ (2001)

2001
[14]

Lam, R. et al. Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting. Science 382, 1416–1421 (2023). URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science. adi2336. 11

2023 doi
[15]

Nearing, G. et al. Global prediction of extreme floods in ungauged water- sheds. Nature 627, 559–563 (2024). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-024-07145-1

2024
[16]

Hales, R. C. et al. Advancing global hydrologic modeling with the geoglows ecmwf streamflow service. Journal of Flood Risk Management n/a, e12859. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jfr3.12859

doi
[17]

Burke, M., Driscoll, A., Lobell, D. B. & Ermon, S. Using satellite imagery to understand and promote sustainable development. Science 371, eabe8628 (2021)

2021
[18]

& Burke, M

Ratledge, N., Cadamuro, G., de la Cuesta, B., Stigler, M. & Burke, M. Using machine learning to assess the livelihood impact of electricity access. Nature 611, 491–495 (2022)

2022
[19]

& Blumenstock, J

Aiken, E., Bellue, S., Karlan, D., Udry, C. & Blumenstock, J. E. Machine learning and phone data can improve targeting of humanitarian aid. Nature 603, 864–870 (2022)

2022
[20]

World development report: Data for better lives. Tech. Rep., World Bank (2021)

2021
[21]

Sentinel-2 MSI Level-2A BOA reflectance (2018)

European Space Agency. Sentinel-2 MSI Level-2A BOA reflectance (2018). Title of the publication associated with this dataset: Sentinel-2 MSI Level-2A BOA Reflectance

2018
[22]

Copernicus DEM (2022)

European Space Agency & Airbus. Copernicus DEM (2022). Title of the publication associated with this dataset: Copernicus DEM

2022
[23]

O., McFarland, M., Emanuele, R., Morris, D

Source, M. O., McFarland, M., Emanuele, R., Morris, D. & Augspurger, T. microsoft/planetarycomputer: October 2022 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.7261897

2022
[24]

Remote Impact Assessment of Rural Infrastructure Development

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation (2015). 1505.04597. 6 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Bridges to Prosperity for sharing data and offering feedback (Abbie Noriega, Kyle Shirley, Cameron Krus...

2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

W., Adger, W

Black, R., Arnell, N. W., Adger, W. N., Thomas, D. & Geddes, A. Migration, immobility and displacement outcomes following extreme events. Environmen- tal Science & Policy 27, S32–S43 (2013). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1462901112001475. Global environmental change, extreme environmental events and ’environmental migration’: exp...

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Pregnolato, M., Ford, A., Wilkinson, S. M. & Dawson, R. J. The impact of flooding on road transport: A depth-disruption function. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 55, 67–81 (2017). URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916308367

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Messager, M. L. et al. Global prevalence of non-perennial rivers and streams. Nature 594, 391–397 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

& Di Baldassarre, G

Lindersson, S., Brandimarte, L., M ˚ ard, J. & Di Baldassarre, G. A review of freely accessible global datasets for the study of floods, droughts and their inter- actions with human societies. WIREs Water 7, e1424 (2020). URL https: //wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wat2.1424

doi:10.1002/wat2.1424 2020

[5] [5]

Allen, G. H. & Pavelsky, T. M. Global extent of rivers and streams. Science 361, 585–588 (2018). URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aat0636

doi:10.1126/science.aat0636 2018

[6] [6]

& Belward, A

Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping off global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Yamazaki, D. et al. Merit hydro: A high-resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography dataset. Water Resources Research 55, 5053–5073 (2019). URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019WR024873

doi:10.1029/2019wr024873 2019

[8] [8]

& Grill, G

Lehner, B. & Grill, G. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s large river systems.Hydrol. Process. 27, 2171–2186 (2013)

work page 2013