[Tagging] When was landuse=reservoir deprecated ?

Toby Murray toby.murray at gmail.com
Thu Jun 6 15:49:19 UTC 2013


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 2013/6/6 Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com>
>
>> The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation
>> where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that
>> cotains some dry land, often wooded, and a reservoir (water).  The
>> purpose of the land is 1) to contain the reservoir and 2) to provide a
>> buffer around it.  Often it is signed "public water supply -- no
>> trespassing".
>>
>
>
> Looks like a perfectly valid case where the whole area should be
> "landuse"=reservoir, but only a subset of the enclosed area is actually
> water (as the buffer is a legally integral part of the reservoir it seems
> logical to include it into the landuse).
>
>
>
>> Originally, the MassGIS openspace import had these land parcels tagged
>> as landuse=reservoir, which made them all blue.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but this is another problem (specific rendering rules). Even if
> sometimes it looks like it was, the rendering on the main page isn't the
> measure of all things(?). IMHO the main mapnik style is overemphasizing
> landuses, where actually other area tags would be more interesting for many
> map users, e.g. place-areas, landcover areas, etc., this would also prevent
> us from senseless tags like landuse=grass.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
>
We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying "this
lake is missing from the map" but I think it turns out that craigslist is
not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they
don't show up on the CL maps. Just another rendering oddity I guess.

Toby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130606/744dd687/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list