<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Dec 16, 2020, 15:22 by tomasstraupis@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:<br></div><blockquote><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir<br></div><div>(just added)<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div>In my experience it results just in not adding anything at all.<br></div><div><br></div><div>It is wiki and can be edited by anyone, so if what I added is wrong it can be changed.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My arguments on the points you've added:<br></div><div><br></div><div> 1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.<br></div><div>If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get<br></div><div>not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons<br></div><div>(totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This<br></div><div>could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you<br></div><div>make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation<br></div><div>for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less<br></div><div>complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and<br></div><div>importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather<br></div><div>use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography<br></div><div>work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only<br></div><div>natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in<br></div><div>('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and<br></div><div>makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original<br></div><div>water scheme.<br></div></blockquote><div>I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas<br></div><div>(that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish<br></div><div>between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But it is also the most typical and common way of rendering things.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> 2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from<br></div><div>cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate<br></div><div>between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point<br></div><div>describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about<br></div><div>how these classes are CAPTURED.<br></div></blockquote><div>This is a double edged sword, it also means that mapper unsure<br></div><div>whatever something is natural or man made (common in case<br></div><div>of mapping based on aerial images, sometimes even in<br></div><div>case of survey) is unable to mark a water area.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And distinguishing natural vs man made is still possible <br></div><div>with water tag anyway.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I was unsure whatever it should be listed as a benefit or<br></div><div>drawback or both sides explained so I ended not <br></div><div>mentioning this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(similarly like I have not mentioned that both natural<br></div><div>and landuse are quite counterintuitive key names here)<br></div> </body>
</html>