[Tagging] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Tue Jun 11 10:12:57 UTC 2019


I agree with Marcin preference for natural=water, water=reservoir, because
it keeps landuse open for the actual use of the land that contains a
reservoir. I dislike landuse-within-landuse.
But I agree with Tomas that this preference does not make it a "better"
option, and the wiki should not state that it is. Equal alternatives, each
with pros and cons, and all may choose the one they think is best.
I'm convinced that the balance will shift towards natural=reservoir, there
is no need to try and force this.
An editor can have its own preferences, if I don't agree I use another
editor or just ignore it.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 11 jun. 2019 om 11:49 schreef Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com
>:

> > I find very strange that reservoir is a landuse by itself
> > it would be a bit like putting landuse=rest on a bench
> > or landuse=stop on a parking lot.
> > <...>
>
>   There are a infinite number of arguments on both sides. Pandora box
> was already opened and dual standard for water tagging already exists.
>   The fact is that landuse=reservoir was and is used on most
> reservoirs so it cannot be flagged as "worse".
>
>   The question is about treatment of these two tags in the wiki.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190611/37a4c7de/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list