[Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only
> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown
> that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and
> thus leading users when in IT it must be the other way round -
> usage/requirements must lead technical decisions. That is IT BASICS.
> Lack of such understanding is the reason why I claim iD developers
> lacked basic IT knowledge


it is indeed well documented that there was a period in iD development where the developers occasionally  (initially without actively communicating it and later openly and deliberately) dismissed the existing tagging wiki docs and mailing list and tag stats, but I think it should be mentioned that it was the former developer. Brian, maybe this was before you started to follow the lists. You can browse through older closed iD tickets to see some discussion, there’s also a wiki page about the topic: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

regarding water=reservoir or landuse=reservoir, there might be some subtle differences. water=reservoir is for surface water areas. if a reservoir was fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as landuse=reservoir but only the actual water surface as water.

Cheers Martin 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201213/f31b9031/attachment-0001.htm>