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

Tomas Straupis tomasstraupis at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 15:49:49 UTC 2020


2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas
> (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish
> between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning.
>
> But it is also the most typical and common way of rendering things.

  How do you decide that it is most typical and common way of rendering things?
  ALL maps I created or seen in GIS/Cartography world, be it online or
printed, interpret water classes differently, especially
basins/riverbanks... And it will be even more important moving to
vector tiles.

> This is a double edged sword, it also means that mapper unsure
> whatever something is natural or man made (common in case
> of mapping based on aerial images, sometimes even in
> case of survey) is unable to mark a water area.

  But that is a point, mapper should find out if we want to have
higher quality data. There is usually some source available you can
use. You can always add fixme, if you're unsure.
  And for the case of pond it IS possible to distinguish it from
reservoir/lake straight away.

> And distinguishing natural vs man made is still possible
> with water tag anyway.

  99% water objects mapped with iD I've seen are water=pond...

> (similarly like I have not mentioned that both natural
> and landuse are quite counterintuitive key names here)

 Best system is to use codes, not names for keys/values, but that is a
totally different "saga".



More information about the Tagging mailing list