text: I don't disagree with most of that, but it's a side thing to if this is actually wetland or an NHD mistake. We shouldn't tag things as wetlands if that's not what they are. 
  You should look into the efficacy of LIDAR as a way to determine water bodies/ways. Just to quote one study "The quality of results obtained from LiDAR will be
  strongly controlled by the native resolution and accuracy
  of the LiDAR data and derived products."  Given that we should take these areas at face value unless they are ground verified or somehow confirmed another way. 
  
  Outside of that, natural=wetland in OpenStreetMap terms is a wetland that is a land area that is saturated with water. So I assume at least in the way the tag is meant an intermittent wetland would be an oxymoron. Since you can't really have a dry area that is saturated with water. It might be worth discussing on the articles talk page or tagging mailing list though. I'm sure there's a workable tag for this out there, but I don't know what it is or if this is even a wetland. So I'm not going to just tag it as natural=wetland and call it good until things are more clarified. Personally, I much rather have nothing there on the map then the wrong thing. 
  