andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 15 12:29:42 UTC 2017
On 11 March 2017 at 23:54, Thilo Haug <thaug at gmx.de> wrote:
> in my opinion, this combination is describing it best :
I don't like this, as I feel pond is "more commonly used for places in
a park where you find ducks, often with lots of vegetation", and the
water would cover a larger area, and not be flowing as much as a pool.
On 12 March 2017 at 01:21, ael <law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> in my opinion, this combination is describing it best :
> As a native English speaker, these are not ponds. Pools are the natural
> description, as already suggested. So just add natural=water, water=pool
> to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water, and tag accordingly.
> The existing tags do not cover these pools.
That was the plan, but I wanted to see what others thought and see if
there was a consensus first.
On 13 March 2017 at 19:14, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2017, at 16:35, althio <althio.forum at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you don't need a new tag, I would go for
>> (and let the size and position of the feature show that it is a small
>> body of water on a river)
>> After all, it is a kind of lake, only much smaller ;)
> no, it's not a kind of lake similar like 3 trees can never be a kind of forest. Both a lake and a forest require a certain size in order to develop the ecosystem that characterizes them.
I agree, a lake and this kind of stream pool are fundamentally
different. natural=water is the common element already.
On 13 March 2017 at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd rather use water=stream_pool without the lake deviation, but then it still is in conflict with water=river. Are these actual features anyway, or are they simply the wider parts of the river?
My view is that a river has enough flow and is wide enough tag as an
area with waterway=riverbank or water=river. So you wouldn't really
get these pools on a river.
A stream on the otherhand might only be able to be tagged as a linear
way in most sections as the water doesn't collect, except for a pool
along the lake. (ie. a pool / stream pool). Further the pool usually
isn't flowing in the same way as the creek, so I don't think it makes
sense to tag as a stream area (a stream area, would be mostly rock,
I'm not fussed with water=stream_pool or water=pool. I agree with
althio that water=stream_pool is more explicit, and water=pool could
be confused with a reflecting pool, swimming pool,
On 11 March 2017 at 20:24, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking for a tag for "A small and rather deep collection of (usually)
> fresh water, as one supplied by a spring, or occurring in the course of a
> stream;" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pool#English also like
> They come in all shapes and sizes but are usually part of a stream/creek
> where it is deep enough for water to collect there.
> Some photo examples:
> It's not a lake which is much larger.
> I don't think it's right to use water=pond, which is "man-made in most
> cases", and seems to be more commonly used for places in a park where you
> find ducks, often with lots of vegetation.
> water=pool seems like the best option. Here is Australia at least a lot of
> them have a name like "... Pool". But since it's undocumented I'm not sure
> what the 226 current uses of the tag are.
> What's the process for working out if this is the best choice, and if it
> turns out to be documenting it on the wiki?
More information about the Tagging