andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 23 09:14:56 UTC 2017
On 22 March 2017 at 18:53, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> wrote:
> You might use waterway as the main tag to prevent confusion with the
> top-level tag of water=*
> Either waterway=pool (TagInfo: 26 uses), or waterway=stream_pool, would be
> better than water=stream_pool. I still think it better to avoid using the
> word stream in the value because then a pool on a river would have these two
> tags, which might look strange to some people:
> This tagging seems more "logical" IMO:
> The existing waterway=pool objects seem to be either small ponds where one
> can bathe or some sort of natural=basin.
On 22 March 2017 at 20:24, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would prefer water over waterway as a key, because this is about areas/polygons, for which we typically use natural=water and subtags. This would also allow to keep waterway=riverbank for the whole stream-/river-area (which is so far the only significant exception where waterway is used for areas and not as a linear graph model).
> I would be ok with leisure as well, although this is mostly used for artificial features so far, and there might raise some confusion with "ordinary" swimming pools.
I agree, these are a "body of water" along the waterway. In the ones
I've mapped so far you have the waterway feature usually as a linear
way and then these water=stream_pool areas over that stream way.
If you've mapped the waterway as an area, why not have these as
separate water=stream_pool areas?
On 23 March 2017 at 05:22, Mark Bradley <ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com> wrote:
> To categorize these pools as a subcategory of leisure seems shortsighted to me, because that may not be the only use for them, just as not all swimming pools are for leisure. I would prefer they be tagged as a value of water or waterway, instead of inferring they are only for leisure.
More information about the Tagging